NATIONAL P •
center Series 11
For health Number S
STATISTICS -
Weight, Height, and Selected
Body Dimensions of Adults
United States - 1960- 1962
20050531 130
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
Public Health Service
NATIONAL CENTER Series 11
For HEALTH STATISTICS Number 8
VITAL and HEALTH STATISTICS
DATA FROM THE NATIONAL. HEALTH SURVEY
Weight, Height, and Selected
Body Dimensions of Adults
United States - 1960-1962
Age and sex distributions for weight, height,
erect sitting height, normal sitting height,
knee height, popliteal height, elbow rest
height, thigh clearance height, buttock-knee
length, buttock-popliteal length, elbow-to-
elbow breadth, and seat breadth.
IT HUTSON STATEMENT A
ppi oved for Public Release
Distribution Unlimited
Washington, D.C.
June 1 965
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
Anthony J. Celebrezze
Secretary
Public Health Service
Luther L. Terry
Surgeon General
Computation of estimated SD's for both men and women, total 18-79
years column only , in tables 1-12, National Center for Health
Statistics, Series 11, Number 8.
Table
1
Weight (pounds)
Table
9 Buttock
Knee Length (in.)
Men
Est SD 27.73 '
Men
Est SD
1.17
Women
Est SD 27.73*
Women
Est SD
1.21
Table
2
Height (inches)
Table
10 Buttock-Popliteal Lth
Men
Est SD 2.85
(in. )
Women
Est SD 2.58
Men
Est SD
1.21
Women
Est SD
1.29
Table
3
Sitting Height-Erect (in.)
Men
Est SD 1.48
Table
11 Elbow -
to-Elbow Brd (in.)
Women
Est SD 1.48
Men
Est SD
1. 84
Women
Est SD
2.11
Table
4
Sitting Height-Normal (in.)
Men
Est SD 1.45
Table
12 Seat Breadth (in)
Women
Est SD 1.52
Men
Est SD
1.17
Women
Est SD
1.45
Table
5
Knee Height (inches)
Men
Est SD 1.13
Women
Est SD 1.09
Table
6
Popliteal Height (inches)
Men
Est SD 1.09
Women
Est SD 1.09
- ts* '
Table
7
Elbow Rest Ht (inches)
— - 1 ■
Men
Est SD 1.17
t
Women
Est SD 1.21
Table
8
Thigh Clearance Ht (in.)
Men
Est SD . 78
Women
Est SD .90
Public Health Service Publication No. 1000-Series 11-No. 8
Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 65-60069
CONTENTS
Page
Introduction - 1
The Health Examination Survey - 1
The Utility of Anthropometric Data - 1
Anthropometric Surveys Among Adults: A Brief Historical Account - 2
The Measurements - 3
Measuring Techniques - 3
The Effect of Clothing on Body Measurements - 5
Reliability of Measurements - 5
Factors Influencing Comparisons of Human Body Size - 6
Findings - 6
Weight - 6
Height - 9
Sitting Height, Erect - 11
Sitting Height, Normal - 13
Knee Height - 14
Popliteal Height - 15
Elbow Rest Height - 15
Thigh Clearance Height - 16
Buttock-Knee Length - 16
Buttock- Popliteal Length - 17
Elbow-to-Elbow Breadth - 17
Seat Breadth - 18
Discussion - 19
Age of Examinees - 19
Racial and Ethnic Differences - 19
Socioeconomic Differences - 20
Civilian-Military Differences - 20
Differences in Measuring Technique - 20
Secular Changes in Body Size - 21
Summary - 21
References - 23
Detailed Tables
25
CONTENTS— Con.
Page
Appendix I. Recording Forms and Diagrams of Physical
Measurements in This Report - 40
Recording Forms Used - 40
Diagrams of Measurements - 41
Appendix II. Survey Design, Response, and Sampling
Variability - 42
Survey Design - 42
Reliability - 42
Sampling and Measurement Error - 43
Small Categories - 44
IN THIS REPORT are presented findings from 12 of the 18 measure¬
ments of body size taken during the examinations of Cycle I of the Health
Examination Survey. This phase of the Survey was started in October
1959 and completed in December 1962. Out of the nationwide probability
sample of 7,710 persons 18-79 years of age selected from the U.S. civil¬
ian, noninstitutiorial population, 6,672 (or more than 85 percent) were
examined.
The measurements obtained in Cycle I were those which could be reliably
taken within the time and facility limitations of the examination and which
are most widely used in the assessment of the health status of the pop¬
ulation; in the design of cotnmercial, industrial, medical, and military
equipment; in the assessment of various physiological processes; and
for many other research and commercial purposes.
This report contains findings by age for men and' women on weight, height,
erect and normal sitting height, knee and popliteal height, elbow rest and
thigh clearance height, buttock-knee and buttock-popliteal length, elbow-
to- elbow breadth, and seat breadth. Measurement techniques are de¬
scribed.
Comparisons are made with findings from previous anthropometric sur¬
veys among various groups in the United States and Canada. The pos¬
sible influence on the findings of such factors as age, racial and ethnic
differences, socioeconomic differences, civilian and military differences,
secular changes in body size, and differences in measuring techniques
which have been noted in previous studies are discussed.
Figure does not meet standards of
reliability or precision -
WEIGHT, HEIGHT, AND SELECTED BODY
DIMENSIONS OF ADULTS
Drs. Howard W. Stoudt, Albert Damon,3 and Ross McFarland, Harvard School of Public Health
Jean Roberts, Division of Health Examination Statistics
INTRODUCTION
The Health Examination Survey
This report presents findings on certain of
the physical measurements of adults obtained in
the first cycle of the Health Examination Survey.
The Health Examination Survey is one of
three programs of the National Health Survey
developed to secure statistics on the health status
of the population of the United States. It obtains
data through medical examination, tests, and
measurements on a scientifically selected ran¬
dom sample of the population. Methods used in
other programs are the household interview and
the obtaining of data from available hospital and
other medical records.
The first cycle of the Health Examination
Survey was limited to civilian adults living out¬
side of institutions. Its purpose was to determine
the prevalence of certain chronic diseases; the
status of auditory and visual acuity; the level of
dental health; and certain measurements of body
size. A nationwide probability sample of 7,710
persons 18-79 years of age was selected. During
the Survey, which extended from October 1959
through December 1962, 6,672 sample persons
were examined. Medical and other Survey staff
aWork done during the tenure of an Established Investigator-
ship of the American Heart Association.
performed the standard examination, which lasted
about 2 hours, in mobile clinics especially de¬
signed for the purpose.
Previous publications describe the general
plan and initial program of the Health Examination
Survey1 as well as the sample population re¬
sponse and the effect of nonresponse on the find¬
ings.2 Data available from the examination, the
household interview preceding the examination,
and a subsequent physician record check with a
subsample of respondents and nonrespondents in¬
dicate that no major features of the adult popula¬
tion of the United States are seriously distorted
and that the effects of nonresponse on the demo¬
graphic picture are not serious.
The Utility of Anthropometric Data
Anthropometric data were collected in the
first cycle of the Health Examination Survey for
the following purposes:
1. As reference standards to describe the
physique of the adult population of the
Nation at a point in time. Time trends
within such a population can be detected
by comparison with earlier or later sur¬
veys. Regional differences within the
United States and differences between this
and other nations may be assessed more
reliably using this standard. Indications
may also be obtained of the effects on hu¬
man body size of such factors as social and
1
geographic mobility, shifting rural-urban
and occupational patterns, and improved
medical and public health conditions.
2. To provide anthropometric data essential
to the designing of equipment for human
use. This report presents, in addition to
the basic dimensions of height and weight,
the 10 body dimensions obtained in the
Health Examination Survey which are most
important for equipment design — com¬
mercial, industrial, military, or medi¬
cal — to ensure its safe, efficient, and
comfortable use. Principles and direc¬
tions for their application are fully treated
elsewhere3 4 and hence will not be given
here.
Height and weight are especially
useful in equipment design since both
correlate closely enough with other body
dimensions — height with segmental and
limb lengths , weight with breadths , depths ,
and girths — to permit reasonable predic¬
tions for groups of persons for whom
these other dimensions may not be avail¬
able.
3. To provide data which can be used in the
study of various physiological functions
and human health problems. For example,
anthropometric data are used to estimate
body surface areas in investigations of the
effects of heat or radiation. Similarly,
skinfold and weight-height data are used
in studies of nutritional status or require¬
ments.
Anthropometric Surveys Among Adults:
A Brief Historical Account
Because of the cost and practical difficulty
of conducting a survey of a truly representative
national sample, most anthropometric descrip¬
tions on a national scale have come from mili¬
tary rather than civilian sources. Probably the
first adequate sampling survey of a national pop¬
ulation was the Canadian height and weight survey
of 1953, 5 6 which recorded the height, weight, and
triceps skinfold on a stratified probability sample
of 22,000 Canadians wearing indoor clothing
without shoes.
Previous large-scale civilian surveys, less
systematically sampled, have been made in Tur¬
key, the United States, and Britain. 7-9 The Turk¬
ish survey reported measurements on some 60,000
subjects; the British, height and weight on 22,500
men and 33,500 women in certain industries, but
fully clothed and shod; and the United States sur¬
vey included 10,000 women aged 18-75 in four
occupational groups, chiefly urban and of low in¬
come levels. All were volunteers, with the limi¬
tations in representativeness thereby implied.
Apart from occasional surveys of industrial
or consumer groups, 10-14 most anthropometric
surveys have been made on students and soldiers.
Students are a special group in any population
with respect to age, residence, socioeconomic
status, nutrition, and intelligence. Servicemen
and women, though possibly geographically rep¬
resentative, are probably physically superior to
the general population because they are selected
to meet minimum standards. Moreover, they span
a narrow age range, with recruits — the most
feasible group to measure— falling in the late
teens and early twenties. The older a military
population the more highly selected it is, for
reasons of self-selection, occupational special¬
ization, and medical elimination of the less fit.
The military group that most nearly represents
a segment of the national population would there¬
fore be those men examined in a general mobil¬
ization or in a universal peacetime draft, both
those accepted and rejected. Such mass data have
been reported from the Selective Service Systems
of Britain13 and the United States16 17 during
and subsequent to the Second World War.
Mass surveys of this sort have the advantages
of broad representativeness and large numbers of
subjects. They have serious disadvantages, how¬
ever, in respect to sex and age restriction, few
measurements, and measuring techniques that
are not sufficiently standardized in actual prac¬
tice. Usually, only height and weight are taken —
rarely, chest circumference as well. In the ex¬
perience of many investigators height so taken
has been found to be subject to substantial error,
while Kossman, Green, and White18 demon¬
strated that chest circumference obtained by un¬
trained observers can be so unreliable as to be
virtually useless.
2
Early large-scale military surveys were
made on recruits during the American Civil
War 19 20 and subsequently in most European
countries. The focus of interest was medical rath¬
er than anthropological, with height, weight, and
chest circumference being the usual dimensions
taken. The data were also used for more general
purposes later. For example, Livi in 1897 and
21 22
1911 compared the "robustness" of various
occupational groups among 300,000 Italian re¬
cruits. During the 1920's detailed anthropometric
studies were made on Swedish and Norwegian
2 a 24 0
soldiers as a basis for racial anthropology
in these countries. The most recent study of this
"classical" type is by Schlaginhaufen25 on 35,500
Swiss recruits, while Martin26 has utilized
Belgian military data to test the size increase of
recruits between 1842 and 1953.
The first military anthropometric survey
that included body measurements in addition to
height and weight and which was intended to
guide the equipment designer was apparently
Davenport and Love's Army Anthropology , 27
based on some 100,000 American troops measured
upon demobilization in 1919-20. This monumental
work became the standard description of U.S. men
between the two World Wars, but appears never to
have been used for its in tended purpose, the sizing
of clothing.
In the Second World War anthropometry was
for the first time successfully applied to equip¬
ment design, based on surveys made in the U.S.
Air Force,28 the British Navy,29 and the Royal
Air Force.30 Since then military anthropometry
has been carried out extensively in the U.S. Army
and Air Force 31 32 and in many other countries
as well, while few civilian anthropometric studies
have been undertaken.
THE MEASUREMENTS
Eighteen measurements of body size were
taken during the examination to provide base¬
line data not previously available on the anthro¬
pometry of the adult population of the United States.
The measurements selected were those which
could be reliably obtained within the time and
facility limitation of the examination, and which
are most widely used in (a) the assessment
of growth, aging, and other aspects of the
health status of the population; (b) the design of
commercial, industrial, medical, and military
equipment to ensure its safe, efficient, and com¬
fortable use; (c) the assessment of various physi¬
ological processes; and (d) many other research
and commercial purposes.
This report is limited to descriptions of the
age and sex distributions of weight, height, and
10 other body measurements among the total ci¬
vilian, noninstitutional, adult population of the
United States.
Measuring Techniques
All measurements were made with the exam¬
inee stripped to the waist and without shoes, but
wearing paper slippers and a lightweight, knee-
length examining gown. Men's trouser pockets
were emptied. Sitting measurements were made
with the examinee seated on a flat, horizontal
board, with the knees at right angles, thighs
horizontal, and popliteal areas (underpart of
thigh behind knee) lightly touching the seat sur¬
face. This was accomplished by inserting or re¬
moving the necessary number of ^-inch plywood
boards under the feet. All measurements not in
the midsagittal plane (parallel to the long axis of
the body) were measured on the right side of the
body, unless otherwise noted.
Measurements were taken by a team of two
trained staff observers using the following stand¬
ardized procedures illustrated in Appendix I:
Weight. — The examinee stood without support
on the platform of an automatic
balancing scale. The examinee's
weight was reproduced on his rec¬
ord, which was inserted in the
scale's automatic printer.
Height. — The examinee stood erect on a
horizontal platform with his back
against a vertical measuring scale 3
inches wide, looking straight ahead
with his head in the Frankfort hori¬
zontal plane (that horizontal plane
which includes the lower margin of
the bony orbit — the bony socket con¬
taining the eye— and the most for¬
ward point in the supratragal notch—
the notch just above the anterior
cartilaginous projection of the
3
external ear). A horizontal meas¬
uring bar (1^ inches wide) was then
brought down snugly but not tightly
on the top of the head. An adhesive
strip with the examinee's case num¬
ber was attached to the scale's
pointer support and the position of
the pointer on the scale was photo¬
graphed. For examinees too tall to
be photographed (over 75 inches),
height was measured with an an-
thropometer. The examinee stood
erect on the floor, heels together,
looking straight ahead with head
in the Frankfort horizontal, arms
hanging at sides. The anthropom-
eter was held perpendicular to the
floor in the midline of the exam¬
inee's back, and the movable bar
was brought down into firm contact
with the top of the head, compress¬
ing the hair if necessary.
Sitting height erect. — The examinee sat
erect — assisted, if necessary, by a
gentle push in the sacral area of
the back — looking straight ahead,
head in the Frankfort horizontal,
knees together, elbows at sides,
forearms at right angles, hands
open, palms facing each other. The
anthropometer was held vertically
along the middle of the back, and
the measuring bar was brought
down into firm contact with the top
of the head, in the midline.
Sitting height normal. — The examinee sat
normally relaxed, hands in lap,
looking straight ahead with head
in the Frankfort horizontal. The
measurement was taken as for sit¬
ting height erect, above.
Knee height. — The examinee sat erect, heels
and knees together. The anthro¬
pometer was held vertically, and
the measurement was made from
the top of the footboard to the top
of the knee just in back of the
patella (knee cap), with the hori¬
zontal bar in light contact with the
leg.
Popliteal height. — The examinee sat relaxed.
The measurement was made with
an anthropometer from the top of
the footboard to the top of the sit¬
ting surface.
Elbow rest height.— The examinee sat erect,
shoulders relaxed, both elbows at
right angles, fingers straight. The
measurement was made with an
anthropometer held vertically from
the sitting surface to the lowest
bony portion of the elbow, using
light contact only.
Thigh clearance height. — The examinee sat
erect, knees together, heels togeth¬
er, right hand on left shoulder. The
measurement was made with an an¬
thropometer, from the top of the
sitting surface to the junction of the
abdomen and thigh, with the cross¬
bar in firm contact to compress the
clothing.
Buttock-knee length.— The examinee sat
erect, knees together, hands in lap,
popliteal fossae (hollows at the back
of the knee) at the front edge of the
sitting board. The measurement
was made between the bars of the
anthropometer, from the mostpos-
terior protrusion of the sacral area
to the foremost edge of the patella.
Buttock- popliteal length.— The examinee sat
erect, hands on knees , popliteal fos¬
sae at the edge of the sitting board.
The measurement was made with an
anthropometer, from the inner edge
of a backboard (held in light con tact
with the examinee's back at right
angles to the sitting board) to the
front edge of the sitting surface.
Elbow -to- elbow breadth. — The examinee sat
erect, knees together, forearms at
right angles, hands open, palms
facing each other, and elbows held
as tightly as possible to the sides.
The measurement was made with
an anthropometer, across the hu¬
meral epicondyles (lateral projec¬
tions of the elbows) with firm
pressure.
4
Seat breadth. — The examinee sat erect, knees
together, hands on knees. The
measurement was made with an
anthropometer, across the greatest
lateral protrusion on each side of
the buttocks, using light but sure
contact to compress the clothing
but not the body.
The Effect of Clothing on
Body Measurements
As noted, all measurements were made with
the examinee stripped to the waist, pockets emp¬
tied, without shoes, and wearing a knee-length
examining gown and paper slippers. Measure¬
ments uninfluenced or insignificantly influenced by
the clothing worn are height, sitting height erect,
sitting height normal, knee height, popliteal
height, elbow rest height, and elbow-to-elbow
breadth. Body dimensions in which clothing could
have affected the measured values are thigh
clearance height, buttock-knee length, buttock-
popliteal length, and seat breadth. However, all
of these dimensions were taken with enough
pressure on the anthropometer to compress the
clothing. While the present values may not be
identical to nude values, it is likely that the
differences, if any, are negligible— at least from
the point of view of equipment design. All body
dimensions are, therefore, published without a
correction for clothing.
Weight, however, is a different problem. Un¬
derclothing, trousers or skirt, hospital gown, and
paper slippers significantly increase nude weight.
Although the precise amount varies, average in¬
crements can be estimated. In the Canadian height
and weight survey6 166 persons, 74 men and 92
women, were measured nude and with "ordinary
indoor clothing" minus shoes and jacket. The
average weight of men's clothing was found to be
3.07 pounds, and of women's clothing, 2.15 pounds.
In the present survey the removal of all clothing
above the waist and, for men, pocket contents as
well, generally subtracted more weight than was
added by the examining gown and slippers, thus
making total clothing weights somewhat less than
in the Canadian survey. A small series of rep¬
resentative clothing checked by the authors showed
the weight of men's clothing worn in the survey
to be slightly over 2 pounds and that of women’s
clothing to be slightly less than 2 pounds. The
values for weight presented in table 1 are shown
as measured during the survey and are not cor¬
rected for clothing. For approximate nude weights,
2 pounds should be subtracted from these figures.
RELIABILITY OF MEASUREMENTS
The quality of the data obtained through the
standardized measurement procedures was main¬
tained in three ways — by training, by using auto¬
matic measuring devices where possible, and by
building safeguards into a team system.
Prior to the start of the survey, the staff
nurse and technician on each of the two caravans
were given intensive training by two of the authors,
who advised on the selection of the series of
measurements and developed the specific tech¬
niques used in the survey. At several times during
the course of the survey, these authors visited
the examining units to observe and retrain the
staff team.
Recording errors for height and weight were
essentially eliminated through the use of the auto¬
matic recording devices described in the preced¬
ing sections— automatic printing of weight and
photographs of height in both centimeters and
inches.
All other measurements were taken by a team
of two persons, the nurse and the technician, one
acting as observer and the other as recorder. The
observer took the measurements, calling out the
results (read to the nearest millimeter) to the
recorder, who repeated them and then called out
the name of the next measurement. The observer
kept the measuring instrument in place until the
recorder repeated the number. The recorder
positioned the right-angle backboard for the
buttock-popliteal length and generally checked
the examinee's position during the procedure.
Any modification in measurement tech¬
niques— such as left-side rather than right-side
measurements required because of amputations
or casts, abnormal conditions such as height de¬
creased from a hunched condition, or weight in¬
creased from pregnancy— were noted on the
5
record, where they could be taken into consider¬
ation in data analysis. Weight was read off the
stamp on the record to the nearest half pound.
Other measurements were recorded to the nearest
millimeter. Body dimensions measured with the
upper sections of the anthropometer were re¬
corded as read from the anthropometer scale,
and the length of the anthropometer base section,
which was not used in these measurements, was
later subtracted mechanically. Conversion of
measurements from centimeters to inches was
also done later mechanically.
FACTORS INFLUENCING
COMPARISONS OF HUMAN
BODY SIZE
For the proper interpretation of the anthro¬
pometric data from the Health Examination Sur¬
vey, the following critical factors that can cause
group differences in body size need to be kept in
mind:
1. The makeup of the population measured,
in terms of age, race, and socioeconomic
background.
2. Differences between civilians and mili¬
tary personnel.
3. The time period of the study, since there
may be population changes in body size
over time.
4. Differences in the measuring techniques
employed.
It is particularly desirable to consider these
factors carefully when the anthropometric data
from the present study are compared with those
from other studies of various population segments
of the United States. A more thorough review of
the possible effect of these factors on the findings
is contained in the section entitled "Discussion."
When assessing differences between findings
from this Survey and those from other studies,
the size of the groups and their appropriate
sampling or standard errors also need to be
considered in order to avoid claiming significance
when, in fact, none exists. For this Survey the
design of the sample made possible the calcula¬
tion from the sample data of the sampling errors
shown in Appendix II. These errors, of course,
tend to be large when the number of examinees
in a particular age-sex group is small. For ex¬
ample, differences in weight of a pound or more
would be considered statistically significant here
(would fall outside the 95 percent confidence
limit) for persons in the age groups under 65,
while differences of 1.5 pounds or more would be
needed to support the statement that a real
difference exists for the oldest age group.
FINDINGS
Anthropometric data for the adult civilian,
noninstitutional population of the United States
aged 18-79 years as determined from the Health
Examination Survey are presented here. The
findings are discussed briefly, and comparisons
are restricted to data from previous anthro¬
pometric surveys of different segments of the
United States or of the Canadian population.
Where the data available for certain dimensions
from previous studies are not strictly comparable,
special problems concerning these studies are
noted.
Weight
For men in the general civilian population,
weight averages 168 pounds. The youngest group,
18-24 years, averages 160 pounds. Weight then
increases with age to 171 pounds for those aged
25-34 years, and to a maximum average of 172
pounds for those between 35 and 54 years of age.
Thereafter weight decreases to 166 pounds at
55-64 years, 160 pounds at 65-74 years, and
finally to the lowest average — 150 pounds — for
the oldest age group measured, 75-79 years
(table 1 and fig. 1).
This pattern of weight gain in the middle
years and of gradual decline with advancing age
is clearly illustrated in figure 2, which shows
the proportionate change in average weight with
age over the mean for the group aged 18-24
years. How much this trend is influenced by
secular changes in body size for successive gen¬
erations represented in this cross-sectional view
of the population cannot be accurately assessed
from the data available.
About 90 percent of all men in this population
range in weight between 126 and 217 pounds, and
probably 97 to 99 percent weigh between 112 and
241 pounds (tables 1 and 13).
Weights are available for comparative pur¬
poses on samples of various civilian and mili¬
tary groups, though most of the data for civilians
6
POUNDS
Figure I. Average weight in pounds for adults
18-79 years.
are not as recent, representative, nor reliable
as could be wished. To permit more accurate
comparisons, the weights of all groups presented
in this section have been standardized for clothing
(i.e., 2 pounds have been added to all nude weights
to approximate the partly clothed weights obtained
in the present Survey; similarly, appropriate
amounts of 2-4 pounds have been subtracted from
groups weighed fully clothed). Because of the
marked association of weight with age, special
attention needs to be paid to the age range of the
groups compared.
Civilian registrants for Selective Service
during 1957 and 1958 in the age range 20-25
years (including those subsequently rejected as
well as those accepted) when age-adjusted to
correspond to the U.S. male population of com¬
parable age17 were 2 pounds lighter than the
average for the group 18-24 years in the present
study.
A large series of more than 75,000 male
students, aged 18-24 years, measured at 87
colleges across the country in 1948-50 for the
American College Health Association study33 had
an average weight 3 pounds less than for the same
age range of the general population. A smaller
series of some 15,000 students aged 25-34 years
measured at the same time in the same colleges
for that study averaged 10 pounds less than the
present civilian population of that age. Students
Figure 2. Relative change in weight with age over
the mean for men and women aged 18-24 years.
aged 18-22 years entering the University of Kansas
in 1948-52 34 averaged 2 pounds lighter, and more
recently, 1 8-year-old students entering Amherst
and Yale in 1955-57 35 36 had the same weightas
the present findings for those 18-24 years of age.
At the other end of the age range a series of
Spanish-American War veterans with an average
age of 81 years in 1959 37 were 4 pounds heavier
than the average of 150 pounds for the group of
the general population aged 75-79 years.
Nearly 2,000 male railroad travelers, with an
average age of 38 as reported in 1945, 38 hada me¬
dian weight 3 pounds lighter than present findings
for the general population, while a series of truck
and bus drivers with an average age of 36 years
were 1 pound heavier.39 Airline piolots , 40 averag¬
ing 32 years, had about the same average weight,
as stated (not measured).
Comparison with data obtained in the 1959
study made by the Society of Actuaries 14 on
weights of some 290,000 men insured by 26 large
life insurance companies in the United States and
Canada between 1935 and 1954 is difficult because
7
no adequate basis is available to use in compen¬
sating for highly variable clothing weights and
different measuring techniques. For example,
some examinees weighed with, and some without,
coats and shoes, and some weights were measured,
while others were reported by the examinee.
The Canadian Survey of 1953 is the only
study similar to the Health Examination Survey
in which height and weight data were obtained on
a stratified, probability sample of a national pop¬
ulation— in this case, Canadians aged 2 years and
above.5 6 The differences over the age ranges
between 18 and 64 years, when compared with the
United States population, varied from 6 to 12
pounds, with an average difference of about 8
pounds, the U.S. population being consistently
heavier. The disparity between the two national
populations was most marked, 12 pounds, in the
range 18-24 years.
Comparison with weight data for various
groups of military personnel shows that Army
separatees of 1946 31 with an average age of 23
years averaged 3 pounds lighter than the group
aged 18-24 years of the present civilian popula¬
tion, but more recent data show Army inductees
aged 20-25 years to be 1 pound heavier than this
civilian group.17 Four hundred white soldiers in
1960, average age 24, weighed 3 pounds more41
than the present civilian findings at 18-24 years,
while Army aviators, average age 30, were 3
pounds lighter42 than the present civilian findings
at 25-34 years. Air Force flyers of 1950, average
age 27 ,43 were about 5 pounds lighter than civil¬
ians roughly comparable in age, while Air Force
basic trainees,44 average age 18, were 11 pounds
lighter than civilians aged 18-24 years. When
compared with various Navy groups, the civilians
aged 18-24 years range from 18 pounds heavier
on the average than a group of 18-year-old re¬
cruits45 to 15 pounds lighter than a group of 24-
year-old submarine officers.46
For women in the civilian population, weight
averages 142 pounds, or 26 pounds less than the
average for men. The distribution of average
weights by age for women differs somewhat from
that for men, as indicated in table 1 and figure 1.
The youngest age group, 18-24 years, is the
lightest, averaging 129 pounds. Thereafter weight
increases with age to 136 pounds at 25-34 years,
144 pounds at 35-44 years, 147 pounds at 45-54
years, and a maximum of 152 pounds for those
55-64 years of age. After 55-64 years, weight
drops to 146 pounds at 65-74 years and to 138
pounds at 75-79 years. Thus women generally
appear to achieve their maximum weights about
two decades later than do men and to have a
greater relative gain with age. This lag may, of
course, be due to the greater attention to "weight
watching" and appearance on the part of younger
women. Here again it is not possible to determine
from the Survey data how much these findings
may be influenced by any changes in body size for
the successive generations in this cross section
of the population.
Roughly 90 percent of all women in this pop¬
ulation range in weightbetween 104 and 199 pounds
and probably 97 to 99 percent fall between 93
and 236 pounds (tables 1 and 14).
Comparisons of the current findings with
those from some of the major studies among
specific subgroups of women in the United States
follow .
In the Department of Agriculture clothing
survey of 1939 and 1940, 8 a series of 10,000
women with an average age of 34 years were
measured. Their weight averaged 1 pound less
than the present findings for women aged 25-34
years throughout the country and 9 pounds less
than the group aged 35-44 years.
A group of 1,900 women railroad travelers,
average age 35 years, as reported in 1945 38 were
6 pounds lighter than the present population; a
group of 100 healthy working women reported in
1934, 47 average age 36, were 4 pounds lighter.
The 40,000 women aged 18-24 years who
entered 88 different colleges across the country
in 1948-50 measured in the American College
Health Association study averaged 2 pounds lighter
than those in the same age group of the general
population. A smaller series of students aged
25-34 years at the same colleges33 were 7 pounds
lighter than their counterparts in the present
study. In more recent studies, students entering
Vassar and Smith in 1955 - 57 48 49 weighed the
same, while women students at the University of
Kansas during 1953-57 50 averaged 2 pounds
lighter than the present population of roughly
comparable age.
Weight data for women from the 1959 study
of the Society of Actuaries are not strictly com¬
parable for the reasons mentioned above.
8
The stratified, random sample of Canadian
women aged 18-64 years and above5 6 has an
average weight about 6 pounds lighter than
their present-day counterparts from the United
States over the various age groups between 18
and 64 years.
When compared with women of similar age
in the Armed Forces in 1944-46, the general ci¬
vilian population tends to be slightly heavier.
Women's Army Corps (WAC) officers, average
age 31 years, were 1 pound heavier than those
aged 25-34 years of the civilian population; WAC
enlisted women, average age 26, were 1 pound
lighter; and Army nurses, average age again 26,
were also 1 pound lighter. 51 Army Air Forces
flight nurses, age span not given, and Womens'
Auxiliary Service Pilots (WASP'S) ranging in age
from 18 to 35 years52 were 12 and 5 pounds
lighter, respectively, than the age range 25-34
years of the civilian population. Basic trainees
of Women in the Air Force (WAF) with an
average age of 19 years 53 were 4 pounds lighter
than women civilians in the age range 18-24 years.
Height
Men in the general civilian population average
68.2 inches in height. By age, the maximum
average height (69.1 inches) occurs in the age
range 25-34 years and is just 0.4 inch taller than
the youngest and 3.2 inches taller than the oldest
age group (table 2 and fig. 3). From ages 25-34
on, there is a small but consistent decrease in
height with increasing age to 68.5 inches for
those aged 35-44 years; 68.2 inches at 45-54
years of age; 67.4 inches at 55-64 years; 66.9
inches at 65-74 years; and a low of 65.9 inches
at 75-79 years.
About 90 percent of all men in this population
range in height between 63.6 and 72.8 inches,
and probably 97 to 99 percent fall between 61.7
and 74.6 inches (tables 2 and 15).
Measured heights are available from studies
among various subgroups of the population of
this country, civilian and military. Comparison
of the present findings with those from other
studies is made here after appropriate adjust¬
ment is taken for shoe height.
Civilian registrants for Selective Service in
the age range 17-25 years during 1957 and 1958
(including those subsequently inducted and re¬
el □ _ I _ I _ I _ I _ I _ H
20 30 40 50 60 70 80
AGE IN YEARS
Figure 3. Average height in inches for adults
18-79 years.
jected), when age-adjusted to correspond to the
U.S. male population of comparable age,17 were
similar in height to those of comparable age in the
general population.
The series of 75,000 male students, aged 18-
24 years, measured at 87 colleges across the
country between 1948 and 1950 averaged 69.6
inches in height,33 0.9 inch taller than the same
age range of the general population. The 15,000
older students, aged 25-34 years, from the same
colleges in that study averaged 69.3 inches in
height, or approximately the same as for the
comparable age range of the general population.
9
Students 18-22 years of age entering the
University of Kansas between 1948 and 1952
averaged 70.0 inches in height,34 while more
recently, 18-year-old students entering Amherst
and Yale in 1955-57 averaged 70.6 and 70.5 inches,
respectively. 35 36 All three groups were taller
than present findings for the general population
of that age.
At the older end of the adult age range, the
group of 100 Spanish-American War veterans
averaging 81 years of age37 were of approxi¬
mately the same height as those 75-79 years of
age in the present study.
The large series of adult railroad trav¬
elers,38 as well as the commerical truck and bus
drivers,39 were of essentially the same height.
In 1946 some 7,000 licensed airline pilots — a
highly selected group physically— averaging 32
years of age, had stated heights that were greater
by 1.8 inches.40
Heights, with an estimated correction for
shoes, from the 1959 Society of Actuaries study14
were consistently shorter than present findings for
adult men by amounts varying according to age,
but averaging over 0.4 inch. More precise es¬
timates of differences in height between these
two studies are difficult to obtain because of
certain features inherent in the collection and
presentation of the data on the insured population.
Canadian survey findings of 19535 6 for men
18-64 years showed an average height 1.1 inches
less than present findings in the United States.
By age, these national height differences are
more marked for the older groups, varying 1.4
inches at 55-64 years and thereafter declining
consistently with decreasing age to 0.7 inch at
18-24 years.
Comparative data for the present civilian
population and those for various military groups
are shown in table A. Army and Navy pilots
averaged somewhat taller, while other military
groups were of about the same height as the
present-day civilians of roughly comparable age.
For women in the general civilian population,
height averages 63.0 inches, or 5.2 inches less
than the average for men. Unlike men, the maxi¬
mum average height for women, 63.8 inches, is
attained in the youngest age group measured, 18-
24 years (table 2). By 25-34 years, average
height decreases slightly to 63.7 inches , then con¬
tinues to fall off with age to 63.5 inches for those
35-44 years old; 62.9 inches at 45-54 years; 62.4
inches at 55-64 years; 61.5 inches at 65-74 years;
and finally, 61.1 inches among persons 75-79
years of age. The maximum difference between
the youngest and oldest is 2.7 inches.
On the average, the relative decrease of
height with age from 45-79 years is similar for
men and women, as shown in figure 4.
Table A. Average height in inches of men in the civilian population of the United
States, 1960-62, and selected military groups, data measured, number examined, and
average age.
Selected group
Date
measured
Number
examined
Average
Age
Height
Total civilian men:
18-24 years -
1960-62
411
21
*68 . 7
25-34 years -
1960-62
675
30
*69.1
Army separatees3! -
1946
24,508
24
68.4
Army drivers41 -
1960
431
24
69.2
Army aviators42 -
1959
500
30
69.5
Air Force flyers43 -
1950
4,062
27
69.1
Air Force ground trainees44 -
1952
3,331
18
68.5
Navy recruits54 -
1947
5,010
18
68.5
Navy pilots55 -
1955
1,190
70.2
Averages based on findings from the sample when weighted to produce estimates for
the population from which it was drawn in the manner described in Appendix II.
10
PERCENT
YEARS YEARS YEARS YEARS YEARS YEARS YEARS
Figure 4. Relative change in height with age over
the mean for men and women aged 18-24 years.
About 90 percent of all women in the civilian
population fall between 59.0 and 67.1 inches in
height, while probably 97 to 99 percent fall be¬
tween 57.1 and 68.8 inches (tables 2 and 16).
Specific comparisons of the present findings
for women in this country with previously meas¬
ured groups of the population yield the following
results.
On the average, they are approximately the
same height as the large series of women of com¬
parable age measured in the Department of Agri¬
culture clothing-size survey of 1939-40;8 0.6 inch
shorter than a small group of white working
women in California chiefly of Northwestern
European descent, who were specially selected
for their good health;47 and approximately the
same height as the large series of women rail¬
road travelers.38
They are taller than 70,000 insured women
in the Society of Actuaries study, measured
between 1935 and 1954, 14 by amounts varying up
to 0.8 inch in some age groups. As noted above,
special characteristics of this actuarial study,
plus the difficulty of obtaining an adequate cor¬
rection factor for women's shoes, preclude more
accurate comparisons with this group.
More than 40,000 women students, 18-24
years of age, who entered 88 different colleges
across the country in 1948-50 had an average
height of 64.5 inches, 0.7 inch more than present
findings for all women in this age group. A smaller
series of 2,600 older students, aged 25-34 years,
from the same colleges and measured in the same
years, had an average height of 64.3 inches, 0.6
inch taller than the comparable age group of the
general population.33 More recently, students
entering Vassar and Smith in 1955-57 had average
heights of 65.2 and 65.3 inches, respectively48 49
and women students at the University of Kansas
during 1953-57 aged 17-21 years averaged 65.2
inches.50
The 1953 Canadian Survey findings showed
that women 18-64 years of age in that country
averaged 61.9 inches in height, or 1.1 inches
shorter than their present U.S. counterparts.5 6
The trend in "height changes" with age is similar
for the two national groups, with the U.S. women
remaining taller by roughly the same amount at
every age level.
As for women in military service for whom
published height data are available, most were
taller than the present civilian population of
women, as indicated in table B.
Sitting Height, Erect
Erect sitting height for men aged 18-79 years
averages 35.6 inches. This measurement has a
maximum average value of 36.0 inches between
25 and 34 years, then decreases slightly with each
succeeding age group to a minimum value of 34.2
inches at 75-79 years, a pattern similar to that
for total height. About 90 percent of the men in
this population have sitting heights ranging be¬
tween 33.2 inches and 38.0 inches, and probably
97 to 99 percent measure between 31.9 and 38.9
inches (table 3 and fig. 5).
This measurement is available on various
subgroups of the population— civilian and mili¬
tary-most of which have slightly longer trunks
than in the present study, as shown in table C.
For women 18-79 years of age, erect sitting
height averages 33.3 inches, or 2.3 inches less
than that for men. This measurement has its
highest average values, 33.7 inches, between 25
and 44 years, and thereafter declines slowly with
11
Table B. Average height in inches of women in the civilian population of the United
States, 1960-62, and for selected military groups, date measured, number examined,
and average age .
Selected group
Date
measured
Number
examined
Average
Age
Height
Total civilian women:
18-24 years -
1960-62
534
21
,63.8
25-34 years -
1960-62
746
30
63.7
Army (WAC) officers51 -
1946
466
31
64.9
Army enlisted women 51 -
1946
4,300
26
64.0
Army nurses51 -
1946
3,488
26
64.3
Air Force WASP's52 -
1943
447
-
64.9
Air Force flight nurses52 -
1943
152
-
63.5
Air Force WAF trainees53 -
1952
851
19
64.1
'Averages based on findings from the sample when weighted to produce estimates for
population from which it was drawn in the manner described in Appendix II.
Table C. Average sitting height, erect, in inches for civilian men in the United
States, 1960-62, and for selected groups of civilian and military men, date measured,
number examined, and average age.
Selected group
Date
measured
Number
examined
Average
m
Sitting
height
Civilian
Total civilian men, 18-79 years -
1960-62
3,091
*44
*35.6
18-24 years -
1960-62
411
-
^35 .8
25-34 years -
1960-62
675
-
}36.0
35-44 years -
1960-62
703
-
7 35.9
75-79 years -
1960-62
72
34.2
Harvard freshmen56 -
1940
174
18
36.5
Bus and truck dr iver s39 -
1950
269
37
36.2
Healthy veterans57 -
1960
114
38
36.6
Spanish American War veterans37 -
1960
119
81
34.8
Military servicemen
Army separatees31 -
1946
24,352
24
35.8
Army drivers41 -
1960
431
24
35.9
Army aviators42 -
1960
500
30
35.6
Air Force flyers43 -
1950
4,061
27
35.9
Naval enlisted men58 -
1955
124
-
36.3
Naval aviation cadets58 -
1955
340
-
36.7
Naval pilots55 -
1958
1,190
“
36.0
Averages based on findings from the sample when weighted to produce estimates for
population from which it was drawn in the manner described in Appendix II.
12
Figure 5. Average sitting height erect for adults
18-79 years.
age to 31.7 inches for those 75-79 years of age.
In this population about 90 percent of the women's
sitting heights range between 30.9 and 35.7 inches,
and probably 97 to 99 percent fall between 29.5 and
36.6 inches.
Comparable data, available only from small
studies completed 20 to 30 years ago, are shown
in table D.
Sitting Height, Normal
For men in the civilian population, this di¬
mension averages 34.1 inches— 1.5 inches less
than erect sitting height. Normal sitting height has
a maximum average value of 34.4 inches at 25-34
years, then declines with age to a low of 33.0
inches for the group 75-79 years of age. A range
between 31.6 and 36.6 inches will include roughly
90 percent of this population, and a range between
30.4 and 37.6 inches will include probably 97 to
99 percent (table 4 and fig. 6).
Few comparative data are available for this
measurement. The series of civilian truck and bus
drivers were larger by 0.3 inch,39 while the group
Table D. Average sitting height, erect, in inches, for women in the United States,
date measured, number examined, and average age.
Average
Selected group
measured
examined
Age
Sitting
height
Total civilian women, 18-79 years -
1960-62
3,581
t44
433 . 3
18-24 years -
1960-62
534
_
*33.6
25-34 years -
1960-62
746
-
,33 . 7
35-44 years -
1960-62
784
-
*33.7
College girls, "Old American" 59 -
1930
161
19
33.6
College girls, "Old American"60 -
1920 's
198
18
34.2
Working women47 -
1930
100
36
33.7
Air Force WASP's52 -
1943
446
-
34.1
Air Force flight nurses52 -
1943
152
“
33.7
Averages based on findings from the sample when weighted to produce estimates for
population from which it was drawn in the manner described in Appendix II.
13
Figure 6. Average sitting height normal for adults
18-79 years.
of white Army drivers41 had nearly the same
average value as the total civilian population of
comparable age.
In women, normal sitting height averages
32.2 inches, 1.9 inches less than the same
measurement in men. The maximum average value
of 32.6 inches occurs among those aged 25-44
years; the average then declines to a minimum
of 30.5 inches for those 75-79 years of age. About
90 percent of the women range between 29.6 and
34.7 inches in normal sitting height, and probably
97 to 99 percent fall between 28.2 and 35.7 inches.
Sitting height, normal, is not available from
other studies among women.
"Slump," which is obtained by subtracting the
normal from the erect measurements of sitting
height, averages 1.5 inches in men. It is maximum,
1.6 to 1.7 inches, for those 18-54 years of age,
and lowest, 1.2 inches, at 75-79 years. The dif¬
ference reflects the greater spinal rigidity among
older persons. "Slump" is very slightly greater
among smaller persons (1.5 inches at the 1st
percentile and 1.6 inches at the 5th) than among
the larger (1.4 inches at the 95th percentile and
1.3 inches at the 99th). In men, "slump" averages
about 4.2 percent of erect sitting height.
"Slump" averages about 1.1 inches in women,
or 3.3 percent of erect sitting height, and varies
little with age. As with men, it is greatest at the
lower percentiles (1.3 inches at the 1st and 5th)
and less at the higher percentiles (1.0 inch at the
95th and 0.9 inch at the 99th).
Knee Height
Knee height in men averages 21.3 inches. In
a manner similar to the pattern for total height,
it reaches a maximum of 21.6 inches by 25-34
years, then declines slowly to 20.6 inches for
those 75-79 years of age. About 90 percent of the
men in this population fall between 19.3 and 23.4
inches in this measurement, and probably 97 to
99 percent fall between 18.3 and 24.1 inches
(table 5 and fig. 7).
Data available from previous studies on
selected groups of civilian and military persons
show similar but slightly greater knee heights.
The white civilian truck and bus driver^ were
larger by 0.4 inch; 39 white Army separatees, by
0.3 inch;31 Army Air Forces flyers, by 0.4
inch; 43 and white Army drivers by, 0.2 inch.41
In women, knee height averages 19.6 inches,
or 1.7 inches less than in men, and changes little
with age. The maximum average value of 19.7
inches occurs through the age groups 18-44 years,
and declines to 19.4 inches for those aged 55-64.
A range between 17.9 and 21.5 inches will include
Figure 7. Average knee height for adults 18-79
years.
14
about 90 percent of the present population of
women, and probably 97 to 99 percent will be in¬
cluded within the extremes of 17.1 to 22.4 inches.
Groups of women previously measured for
knee height include Army Air Forces flight nurses,
who were shorter than the present population by
0.1 inch, and Womens' Auxiliary Service Pilots,
who were taller by 0.5 inch.52
Popliteal Height
For men this dimension averages 17 .3 inches.
Maximum average height, 17.6 inches, is reached
by ages 25-34 years; the average declines slowly
thereafter with age to a minimum of 16.6 inches
for those of 75-79 years. About 90 percent of men
have popliteal heights between 15.5 and 19.3
inches, and probably 97 to 99 percent have heights
between 14.9 and 20.0 inches (table 6 and fig. 8).
Average values from other studies show 17.0
inches for Air Force flying personnel43 and 17.4
inches for white Army drivers.41 The high median
of 19.0 inches obtained for men railway travelers 38
was due to the shoes worn by the subjects, which
add about 1.0 inch, and to differences in measuring
technique.
For women, popliteal height averages 15.6
inches, or 1.7 inches less than for men. This
Figure 8. Average popliteal height for adults
18-79 years.
measurement has its highest average of 16.0
inches in the youngest age group, 18-24 years.
Thereafter, popliteal height decreases with each
successive age group to a minimum of 15.3 inches
by 65-74 years. A range between 14.0 and 17.5
inches includes some 90 percent of all women, and
a range between 13.1 and 18.0 inches includes
probably 97 to 99 percent.
Popliteal height has been measured on only
one other group of women— the railway travelers—
where the median is 18.1 inches,38 or 2.4 inches
greater than the comparable median for women
in the present population. This large difference
was due to the shoes worn by the traveler group,
which in women may add an average increment
of as much as 2.0 inches, and to differences in
measuring technique.
Elbow Rest Height
Elbow rest height for men averages 9.5
inches. The maximum average value of9.7 inches
occurs between 25 and 44 years and is followed by
a steady decline thereafter to 8.6 inches for those
aged 75-79 years. About 90 percent of all men
have elbow rest heights between 7.4 and 11.6
inches, probably 97 to 99 percent have heights
between 6.3 and 12.5 inches (table 7 and fig. 9).
For the series of railroad travelers38 this
distance was 0.1 inch greater than for the com¬
parable segments of the present population; for
Air Force flying personnel, it was 0.4 inch
less; 43 and for white Army drivers, 0.3 inch
greater.41
Figure 9. Average elbow rest height for adults
18-79 years.
15
Among women, the average value of this
dimension is 9.1 inches, 0.4 inch less than for men.
The maximum mean of 9.4 inches is found at ages
35-44, after which a decline with age sets in,
reaching a minimum of 8.2 inches at ages 75-79
years. The approximate 90-percent range for
women extends from 7.1 to 11.0 inches, while
probably 97 to 99 percent of the women are within
the range from 6.1 to 11.9 inches.
Women railroad travelers38 had an elbow
rest height 0.6 inch higher than the present popu¬
lation. This difference may be due largely to the
laterally fixed armrests in the special measuring
chair used for the travelers which forced smaller
women to extend their arms to the sides and
slightly upward for this measurement.
Thigh Clearance Height
For men this dimension averages 5.7 inches.
It is at a maximum of 5.8 inches between 25 and
44 years, and declines to 5.2 inches for those aged
75-79 years (table 8 and fig. 10). The relative
decline occurs at about the same rate as for elbow
rest height.
About 90 percent of the men in the civilian
population have thigh clearance heights between
4.3 and 6.9 inches, and probably 97 to 99 percent
fall between 4.1 and 7.7 inches.
Comparable measurements are available for
two military groups. Air Force flying personnel
were smaller by 0.1 inch,43 while white Army
drivers averaged 0.2 inch larger41 than the
present civilian population.
Thigh clearance height for women averages
5.4 inches, 0.3 inch less than for men. It is at a
maximum of 5.5 inches between ages 35 and 54,
and declines to a low of 5.2 inches for those 75-79
years of age. Less variation with age is found in
this dimension among women than among men; in
addition, less variation occurs here than for elbow
rest height among women.
About 90 percent of all women fall between
4.1 and 6.9 inches in this measurement, and
probably 97 to 99 percent fall between 3.8 and 7.7
inches.
No comparable data are available from pre¬
vious studies among women.
INCHES
Figure 10. Average thigh clearance for adults
18-79 years.
Buttock-Knee length
Buttock-knee length for men averages 23.3
inches. This measurement shows a maximum of
23.6 inches at 25-34 years, drops to 23.3 inches
from 35 through 54 years, and has a minimum of
22.7 inches for the group 75-79 years of age. The
range between 21.3 and 25.2 inches includes
roughly 90 percent of the adult men, and 20.3 to
26.3 inches includes probably 97 to 99 percent
(table 9 and fig. 11).
The series of commercial truck and bus
drivers 39 measured for buttock-knee length av¬
eraged 0.4 inch larger than the present population.
Most military groups measured for this di¬
mension exhibit average values similar to, or
slightly higher than, the adult civilian population.
The large series of Army separatees of World
War II were larger by 0.1 inch in this measure¬
ment; 31 Army aviators, 0.5 inch;'12 white Army
drivers, by 0.4 inch;41 Air Force flyers, by 0.3
inch;43 and Navy aviation cadets, by 1.1 inch.58
For women this measurement averages 22.3
inches, 1.0 inch less than for men. By age the
16
Figure II. Average buttock-knee length for adults
18-79 years.
Figure 12. Average buttock-popliteal length for
adults 18-79 years.
maximum value of 22.5 inches occurs at 35-44
years; the value then gradually declines to a
minimum of 22.0 inches for women 75-79 years
of age. The approximate 90-percent range in this
dimension for women falls between 20.4 and 24.6
inches, while probably 97 to 99 percent of the
women fall between 19.5 and 25.7 inches.
Two groups of women on which this measure¬
ment was taken in 1943 were both larger, Army
Air Forces flight nurses, byO.l inch and Womens'
Auxiliary Service Pilots, by 0.3 inch.52
Buttock-Popliteal Length
For men, buttock-popliteal length averages
19.4 inches. The maximum value of 19.6 inches
is found between 25 and 34 years and is followed
by a gradual decline for each successive age
group to 18.9 inches at 75-79 years. About 90
percent of all men fall between 17. 3 and 2 1.6 inches
in this dimension, and probably 97 to 99 percent
fall between 16.5 and 22.7 inches (table 10 and
and fig. 12).
Male railroad travelers showed a median
value of 18.9 inches in this dimension,38 0.5 inch
below the median for men in the general popu¬
lation. Since the travelers were only 0.3 inch
shorter than the present population, part of this
difference may result from the correction factor
which was applied to obtain the estimated true
seat length for the travelers, who were measured
in a special type of chair. The group of Spanish-
American War veterans with a mean age of 81
years averaged 18.6 inches37 as opposed to 18.9
inches for the oldest age group, 75-79 years, in
the present study. Among the military groups the
only data available were for white Army drivers,
who averaged 0.2 inch smaller in this measure¬
ment.41
Buttock-popliteal length for women averages
18.9 inches, or 0.5 inch less than the average for
men. There is little association with age, the
maximum value of 18.9 inches occurring among
those 25-64 years, with a decline to 18.6 inches
for those 75-79 years of age. Roughly 90 percent
of all women vary between 17.0 and 21.0 inches
in this dimension, and probably 97 to 99 percent
are between 16.1 and 22.0 inches.
The series of women railroad travelers had
a median buttock-popliteal length of 18.2 inches,
0.7 inch less than women in the present popu¬
lation, the reason for this difference being noted
above.
Elbow-to-Elbow Breadth
For men, elbow-to-elbow breadth, generally
the greatest width across the body, averages 16.6
inches. Age differences in this dimension are not
marked other than for the youngest group, 18-24
years, where the minimum average of 15.6 inches
occurs. This average varies between 16.8 and 16.9
17
INCHES
Figure 14. Average seat breadth for adults 18-79
years.
Figure 13. Average el bow-to-el bow breadth for
adults 18-79 years.
inches in the age span for persons 35-74 years
of age, with a slightly lower value in the preceding
and succeeding age groups. About 90 percent of
the men in this population fall between 13.7 and
19.9 inches in elbow-to-elbow breadth, and prob¬
ably 97 to 99 percent fall between 13.0 and 21.4
inches (table 11 and fig. 13).
In comparisons with previous findings on
groups in the population, it should be noted that
in the present survey the examinees held their
elbows tightly pressed to their sides, whereas in
many of the other studies the elbows were held
lightly against the sides. For the survey of Air
Force cadets and gunners in which maximal
press was used, the results were very similar to
those in the present study — median values of 16.7
and 16.4 inches, respectively.52 In other studies,
where maximal elbow press was not exerted, the
resulting values were larger. For example, the
series of civilian truck and bus drivers were
broader than men in the present survey by 0.9
inch;39 Air Force flyers, by 0.7 inch;43 Army
separatees by 0.9 inch; 31 and white Army drivers
by 1.1 inches.41
Women average 15.3 inches in this measure¬
ment — 1.3 inches less than the comparable value
for men — and show larger changes with age than
do men. The smallest average, 14.0 inches, occurs
in the youngest group, 18-24 years, but the
measurement then increases steadily with age
for each group until it reaches a maximum of
16.4 inches at 55-74 years. It then declines to
15.8 inches among those 75-79 years of age.
Roughly 90 percent of the women fall between 12.3
and 19.3 inches in this dimension, and probably
97 to 99 percent fall between 11.4 and 21.2 inches.
Elbow-to-elbow breadth on other female
populations is available only for Womens' Aux¬
iliary Service Pilots in 1943, who were 0.2 inch
smaller than the women in the present study, and
Army Air Forces flight nurses, also in 1943, who
were 0.4 inch smaller.52
Seat Breadth
Seat breadth for men averages 14.0 inches.
This measurement is minimal at 18-24 years,
averaging 13.6 inches. It increases to 14.1 inches
at 35-54 years, then decreases slowly to 13.7
inches for those 75-79 years of age. In this popu¬
lation about 90 percent of the men fall between
12.2 and 15.9 inches, and probably 97 to 99 percent
fall between 11.5 and 17.0 inches (table 12 and
fig. 14).
In previous studies among civilians, truck
and bus drivers averaged broader than the present
population by 0.6 inch 39 and men railroad
travelers, by 1.3 inches/ The latter difference
18
was doubtless due to the travelers' clothing and
to a difference in measuring techniques, since the
railroad travelers were lighter in weight than the
present findings for the general population.
Army separatees of 1946 were just as broad
as the men in this study,31 as were white Army
drivers41 and Air Force flyers.43 Armyaviators
were broader by 0.2 inch.42
Seat breadth in women averages 14.4 inches,
0:4 inch larger than the same value for men. This
is one of the few body measurements in which
women exceed men. The relative increase in size
to the middle-age maximum is slightly greater
for women than for men.
The smallest average value for women, 13.8
inches, is found in the youngest age group, 18-24
years of age. Thereafter, seat breadth increases
by small increments to a maximum breadth of
14.8 inches for the group aged 55-64 years, and
then decreases to 14.2 inches by 75-79 years. The
range between 12.3 and 17.1 inches includes
roughly 90 percent of this population, and 11.7
to 18.8 inches includes probably 97 to 99 percent.
Women railroad travelers were broader by
0.2 inch; 38 Army Air Forces flight nurses, by
0.7 inch; and Womens' Auxiliary Service Pilots,
by 0.6 inch 52 than present findings for the
general population. The latter two differences
could be due in part to the girdles or other size-
reducing garments that were probably worn by
a greater proportion of the civilian women while
being measured.
DISCUSSION
Age of Examinees
Marked differences in most of the body
measurements included in this report occur during
adult life. Full growth in regard to stature and
related body dimensions is generally achieved by
the late teens or early twenties for men, and a
few years earlier for women. Body dimensions
such as weight and body breadths and girths,
which are affected by deposits of fatty tissue,
usually continue to increase through middle age,
after which a gradual decline is observed. The
reason for the weight loss late in life is not fully
understood; neither are the precise age of onset
nor the amount of decrement. Stature and related
body heights do not increase after maturity, but
actually decrease with advancing age. These de¬
creases may be negligible during the first few
decades of adulthood, but become more marked
as old age is approached. Among the causes of
reduced body lengths are the inability to main¬
tain erect posture, compression of the spinal
column, and various forms of arthritis.
The differences in body size evident among
age groups in this cross-sectional study may
result from any combination of changes in the
individual with age, from the secular trend to in¬
creasing body size, or from preferential survival
of smaller persons. Changes with age in the indi¬
vidual and preferential survival can be adequately
studied only on a longitudinal or prospective basis.
It is difficult to draw valid inferences from
comparisons with the findings from other studies
because of the noted age changes in body size.
For many of the studies referred to in this report,
published data contained only the average age or
age span of the examinees. The exact age distri¬
bution was often not available, and may have been
quite different from that in the general population.
For example, significant differences in body size
would be expected between a group with an average
age of 18 or 19 years and the group aged 18-24
years from the present survey.
Racial and Ethnic Differences
Despite some overlapping, the major races
of man — Caucasian, Negroid, and Mongoloid—
have been found in previous studies to differ in
body size and proportion. Similarly, marked
variations have been noted among ethnic groups
of varying national ancestry within one racial
stock, such as Swedes and Spaniards. North¬
western Europeans in these studies have tended
to be taller than Southern Europeans; Central
Europeans , to be stockier in build than those from
the Mediterranean; and most Negroes tend to have
longer extremities, relative to their stature, than
do white persons.
Since the Health Examination Survey utilizes
a stratified, random sample of virtually the entire
adult, civilian population in all parts of the United
States at one period in time, it may be expected
to contain the various racial or ethnic groups in
roughly the same proportion that they are found
19
in the country as a whole. It includes for example,
approximately 10 percent nonwhites, most of whom
are Negroes. Thus these anthropometric data
describe an average or "composite" American,
and as such they may differ from the data obtained
on groups of different racial or ethnic makeup.
Socioeconomic Differences
Various studies such as that by Karpinos on
Selective Service Registrants of World War II16
have shown that persons from the higher social
and economic strata of society tend to be taller
than those from the lower strata. Correlated with
these differences in height are corresponding
differences in the other linear dimensions. Weight
and the related body breadths, depths, and circum¬
ferences have also been found to be greater for
upper socioeconomic groups, except where dieting
or "weight watching" is a commonly accepted
cultural norm.
Very likely the single most important factor
in these body-size differences is the superior
nutrition available, especially during the growth
years, to persons with higher incomes. This per¬
mits the attainment of a greater percentage of the
individual's genetic growth potential, an opportu¬
nity denied in varying degree to those whose diets
are nutritionally less adequate. A secondary factor
that contributes in some instances to the larger
body size of upper socioeconomic groups is
relatively greater freedom from childhood dis¬
eases. A third is ancestry. Since "Old Americans"
were predominantly of Northwest European ances¬
try, many of these relatively tall peoples were
able, for purely historical reasons, to place them¬
selves higher in the socioeconomic scale than
many of the later arrivals in this country, the
relatively short- statured Southern and Eastern
Europeans. Though such socioeconomic distinc¬
tions between groups of different national ances¬
try are tending to disappear today, this factor has
undoubtedly been responsible in part for the
anthropometric differences observed among var¬
ious population subgroups in previous studies.
Since the opportunity for higher education
has been, in the past, closely related to higher
socioeconomic status (and still is today, though
less so), these same nutritional and historical
factors account for the almost uniformly higher
statures recorded for college students, as com¬
pared with noncollege persons of the same age.
Civilian-Military Differences
Persons in the U.S. military services are
physically a highly selected group, as previously
noted. Minimum and maximum height-weight
standards for acceptance eliminate from the
military those at the extremes of the body-size
distribution. Military personnel are, in addition,
a relatively healthy group, since all have passed
a physical examination before acceptance, and
those who develop various incapacitating con¬
ditions while in the services are normally dis¬
charged. Because of more regular physical ac¬
tivity, military personnel are generally in better
physical condition than most civilians.
Since all of these factors influence human
body size and shape, it is not surprising that
military personnel differ anthropometrically from
members of the civilian population of comparable
age. On the whole, despite much individual varia¬
tion as well as differences among some of the
specialty fields, previous studies indicate that
service men and women tend to be taller, leaner,
and more muscular. They also include fewer
persons at the extremes of body size. Generally,
data from the present survey show good agree¬
ment with those military findings which are
available for comparison, when the above limi¬
tations are considered.
Differences in Measuring Technique
Differences among the results of various
anthropometric surveys can be caused by dif¬
ferences in the kind and quality of measuring
techniques employed. If properly trained person¬
nel and standard techniques are not used, signifi¬
cant variations in the measurements are likely.
Equally suspect are the results of large surveys
where many different observers have taken the
measurements, each according to his own tech¬
niques. In some surveys the results are further
confused by the fact that heights and weights are
occasionally recorded as stated by the subject and
are not measured. This presents a major diffi¬
culty since many persons know neither their weight
20
nor their height within acceptable limits of ac¬
curacy.
Even with trained anthropometrists, small
differences may occur because of minor varia¬
tions in the techniques used. In measurements
over soft tissues, such as seat breadth, differences
in the amount of pressure exerted on the bars of
the instrument will influence the recorded values.
Different techniques may also be used to measure
the same body dimension. For example, stature
measured with the examinee standing against a
wall is almost always higher, by amounts av¬
eraging some 0.4 inch, than when he is measured
standing erect but free.61 Again, the examinee
himself may vary — stature is less in the evening
than in the morning because of the compression
of the intervertebral disks of the spinal column.
Weight may vary a pound or two or more, depend¬
ing on food and liquid intake, elimination, perspi¬
ration, and physical activity.
it should be emphasized that the above com¬
ments are not intended to cast doubt upon the
validity or reliability of all anthropometric sur¬
veys, or to discourage comparisons between
different anthropometric surveys. Rather they are
intended to point out some of the difficulties in
interpretation that can occur, if the data are not
evaluated critically.
In the present comparisons, the attempt has
been made to include only surveys considered
reasonably accurate and reliable. Where this has
not been possible, owing to the scarcity of com¬
parative data for certain dimensions, pertinent
problems are noted.
Secular Changes in Body Size
Changes in body size have been taking place
throughout the course of human evolution, but
various studies, some of which are cited here,
indicate that these changes may have been suffi¬
ciently accelerated in very recent times to cause
significant differences in anthropometric surveys
made only a few years apart. An indication of this
trend is afforded by a comparison of Army
inductees measured at three different times over
the past 40 years. Inductees during World War II
were 0.67 inches taller and 10.7 pounds heavier
than the inductees of World War I. Inductees
measured during 1957-58 were 0.50 inches taller
and over 7 pounds heavier than the World War II
inductees, thus making a total increase from
1917-18 to 1957-58 of about 1.2 inches and
18 pounds. 16 17
The same trend toward increased body size
is also suggested in civilian studies. In two
successive generations of Harvard students from
the same families, the sons were 1.3 inches taller
and 10 pounds heavier than their fathers were at
the same age.60 A more recent study suggests
that the average height of college students is con¬
tinuing to increase.63 These changes may be due
largely to improved nutrition and better medical
care during childhood, though it has been sug¬
gested63 that an additional explanation maybe
the breakdown of breeding isolates, producing
heterosis, or hybrid vigor, well known to plant
and animal breeders. There is some evidence
in man that offspring of parents from different
towns are taller than those whose parents were
born in the same town.64
Lack of a comparable national survey for an
earlier period prevents making direct com¬
parisons of the measurements found in this
survey with those at an earlier period for the
entire United States. Such comparisons could,
hopefully, be made when similar surveys are
conducted in future years.
SUMMARY
Findings on selected measurements of phy¬
sique from the Health Examination Survey among
adults in the civilian, noninstitutional popula¬
tion aged 18-79 years in 1960-62 show the
following:
1. Men average 168 pounds in weight, with
about 90 percent falling between 126 and
217 pounds. Their weight decreases with
age from the maximum average of 172 for
those 35-54 years of age to 150 pounds at
75-79 years.
For women, about 90 percent fall
between 104 and 199 pounds, averaging
142 pounds. Their maximum average, 152
pounds, is in the 55-64 year age group, or
about 20 years later than that for men.
Average weight then drops 14 pounds by
75-79 years.
21
2. In height, men average 68.2 inches, with
some 90 percent between 63.6 and 72.8
inches. Their average height decreases
with age from a maximum of 69.1 inches
for those aged 25-34 years to 65.9 inches
in the age group 75-79 years.
Women average 63.0 inches in height,
but for them there is a steady decline in
stature with each successive age group,
beginning with 63.8 inches at 18-24 years
and falling to 61.1 inches at 75-79 years.
About 90 percent of all adult women are
between 59.0 and 67.1 inches in height.
3. Sitting height, erect, averages 35.6 inches
for men and 2.3 inches less for women.
Roughly 90 percent are between 33.2 and
38.0 inches for men and 30.9 and 35.7
inches for women.
When the examinee is sitting normal¬
ly, this height averages 1.5 inches less
for men and 1.1 inches less for women.
4. Knee height averages 21.3 inches for men
and 19.6 inches for women, while popliteal
height, measured at the back of the knee,
is roughly 4 inches less.
5. Elbow rest height averages 9.5 inches for
men and 0.4 inch less (9.1 inches) for
women.
6. Thigh clearance height also is similar for
men and women, with men averaging 5.7
inches and women, 5.4 inches.
7. Measurements of the upper part of the leg
show an average buttock-knee length of
23.3 inches for men and 1 inch shorter
for women, while buttock-popliteal length
averages 19.4 inches for men and 0.5 inch
less for women.
8. Elbow-to-elbow breadth averages 16.6
inches for men and 15.3 inches for women,
while seat breadth averages 14.0 inches
for men and 0.4 inch more for women.
o o o
22
REFERENCES
iU.S. National Health Survey: Plan and initial program of the
Health Examination Survey. Health Statistics. PHS Pub. No. 584-
A 4. Public Health Service. Washington. U.S. Government Print¬
ing Office, May 1962.
2
National Center for Health Statistics: Cycle I of the Health
Examination Survey, sample and response. Vital and Health Sta¬
tistics. PHS Pub. No. 1000- Series 11-No. 1. Public Health Serv¬
ice. Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office, Apr. 1964.
2
''Damon, A., Stoudt, H. W., and McFarland, R. A.: Anthropometry,
Chapter 11, in C. T. Morgan, J. S. Cook, A. Chapanis, and M. W. Lund,
eds. , Hitman Engineering Guide to Equipment Design. New York.
McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1963.
^Damon, A., Stoudt, H. W. , and McFarland, R. A.: The Human
Body in Equipment Design. Cambridge, Mass. Harvard University
Press, in press.
^Pett, L. B., and Ogilvie, G. F.: The Canadian weight-height
survey. Human Biol. 28(2): 177- 188, May 1956.
^Pett, L. B. , and Ogilvie, G. F.: The report on Canadian aver¬
age weights, heights and skinfolds. Canadian Bulletin on Nutri¬
tion 5(1): 1-81, Sept. 1957.
^Kansu, S. A.: Enquete antbropometrique turque faitc sur 59,728
individus de deux sexes. Publication No. 151. Ankara, Turkey.
Central Statistical Office, 1937.
8
U.S. Department of Agriculture: Women’s Measurements for
Garment and Pattern Construction, by R. O’Brien and W. C. Shelton.
Miscellaneous Publications No. 454. Washington. U.S. Govern¬
ment Printing Office, 1941.
^Kemsley, W. F. F.: Weight and height of a population in 1943.
Ann. Eugenics 15:161-183, 1950.
^U.S. Public Health Service: A health study of 10,000 male in¬
dustrial workers, by R. H. Britten and L. R. Thompson. Public
Health Bulletin, No. 162. Washington. U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1926.
^Great Britain Medical Research Council, Industrial Health
Research Board: The Physique of Man in Industry, by E. P. Cath-
cart, D. E. R. Hughes, and J. G. Chalmers. Report No. 71. London.
His Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1935.
*2Sittig, J., and Freudenthal, H.: De juiste maat. Leyden,
Netherlands. N. V. Magazijin "De Bijenkorf,” 1951.
^3de Felice, S.: Rech erches sur T anthropologic des Francaises.
Paris. Masson et Cie., 1958.
^Society of Actuaries: Build and Blood Pressure Study. Chi¬
cago, 1959.
^Stewart, A. M., Webb, J. W., and Hewitt, D.: Social medicine
studies based on civilian medical board records; National Service
rejects. Brit.J.Prev. & Social Med. 9:19-25, Apr. 1955.
^Karpinos, B. D.: Height and weight of Selective Service reg¬
istrants processed for military service during World War II. Human
Biol. 30(4): 292- 321, Dec. 1958.
^Karpinos, B. D.: Current height and weight of youths of mili¬
tary age. Human Biol. 33(4): 335-354, Dec. 196 1.
18
°U.S. Army Air Forces: The Reliability and Value of Thoracic
and Abdominal Measurements in the Physical Examination for Fly¬
ing, by C. E. Kossman, E. L. Green, and E. C. White. Report No.
1, Project No. 243. Randolph Field, San Antonio, Texas. School
of Aviation Medicine, Nov. 1945.
^ Gould, B. A.: Investigations in the Military and Anthropolog¬
ical Statistics of American Soldiers. New York. Hurd, 1869.
^Baxter, J. H.: Statistics, Medical and Anthropological, of the
Provost-Marsbal-GeneraTs Bureau. Washington. U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1875.
^Livi, R. : Taille et perimetre thoracique des militaires en rap¬
port avee les professions. Moscow, Russia. 1 2th International Med¬
ical Congress, 1897.
Livi, R.: Uber den Nutzen Anthropometrischer Grenzwerte fur
die Assentierung. Militardrzt 45: 3- 10, 1911.
~3Lundborg, H., and Linders, F.: Anthropologica Suecica. Up¬
psala, Sweden. Almquist and Wiksell, 1926.
'-‘^Bryn, H., and Schreiner, K. E.: Die sornatologie der Nonueger.
Oslo, Norway. Skrifter utgift av det Norske Videnskaps-Akademi,
1929.
25 •
'Schlaginhaufen, O.: Anthropologica Helvetica. Zurich, Swit¬
zerland. Institut Orell Fiissli, 195^.
^Martin, L.: Etude biometrique de grandeurs somatiques re-
cueillies sur les corfscrits et recrues beiges et de leur evolution.
Brussels, Belgium. Institute National de Statistique, 1958.
^Davenport, C. B., and Love, A. G. : Army Anthropology. Wash¬
ington. U.S. Government Printing Office, 1921.
28
Damon, A., and Randall, F. E.: Physical anthropology in the
Army Air Forces. Am. J . Phys. Anthropol. 2:293-316, Sept. 1 944.
29
'Clark, W. E. le Gros: Physical anthropology applied to prob¬
lems of war. Brit.M.J. 1:39-43, Jan. 1946.
^Morant, G. M.: Applied physical anthropology in Great Brit¬
ain in recent years. Am.]. Phys. Anthropol. 6:329-339, Sept. 1948.
3^U.S. Department of the Army: Reference Anthropometry of Ar¬
my Men, by R. W. Newman and R. M. White. Report No. 180. Na¬
tick, Mass. Environmental Protection Section, Quartermaster Cli¬
matic Research Laboratory, 1951.
32U.S. Department of the Air Force: Annotated Bibliography of
Applied Physical Anthropology in Human Engineering, by R. Hansen,
D. R. Cornog, and H. T. E. Hertzberg. WADC TR 56-30. Wright-
Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. Wright Air Development Center,
1958.
33American College Health Association: Data on heights and
weights of 160,000 students entering 104 colleges, in U.S. Depart¬
ment of Agriculture, Height and Weights of Adults in the United
States, by M. L. Hathaway and E. D. Foard. Home Economics Re¬
search Report No. 10. Washington. U.S. Government Printing Of¬
fice, I960.
3^Elbel, E. R.: Body measurements of male students entering
the University of Kansas. Kansas Studies in Education 4(2): 1-24,
1954.
33Hitchcock, E., Marsh, A., Whitmore, S. C., and Durken, R.:
Unpublished data from Amherst College, 1861-1957, in U.S. Depart¬
ment of Agriculture, Height and Weights of Adults in the United
States, by M. L. Hathaway and E. D. Foard. Home Economics Re¬
search Report No. 10. Washington. U.S. Government Printing Of¬
fice, I960.
3^Kiphuth, R. J. H., and Reilly, J. J.: Unpublished data from
Yale University, 1883-1957, in U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Height and Weights of Adults in the United States, by M. L. Hath¬
away and E. D. Foard. Home Economics Research Report No. 10.
Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office, I960.
3^Damon, A., and Stoudt, H. W.: The functional anthropometry
of old men. Human Factors 5(5): 48 5-49 1 , Oct. 1963.
3®Hooton, E. A.: A Survey in Seating. Gardner, Mass. Heywood-
Wakefield Co., 1945.
^Damon, A., and McFarland, R. A.: The physique of bus and
truck drivers: with a review of occupational anthropology. Am.].
Phys. Anthropol. 1 3( 4): 7 1 1-742, Dec. 1955.
23
^U.S. Department of Commerce, Civil Aeronautics Administra¬
tion: Physical Characteristics of the 1946 Airline Transport Pilot
Population, by M. Y. McCormick. Washington. U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1947.
Damon, A., Bleibtreu, H. K., Elliot, O., and Giles, E.: Pre¬
dicting soma to type from body measurements. Am. ] .Phys.Anthropol.
20:461-73, Dec. 1962.
^U.S. Departmentof the Army: Anthropometry of Army Aviators,
by R. M. White. TR EP-150. Natick, Mass. Quartermaster Re¬
search and Engineering Center, 1961.
^U.S. Department of the Air Force: Anthropometry of Flying
Personnel— 1950, by H. T. E. Hertzberg, G. S. Daniels, and E.
Churchill. WADC TR 52-321. Wright-Patterson Air Force Base,
Ohio. Wright Air Development Center, 1954.
^U.S. Department of the Air Force: Anthropometry of Male Bas¬
ic Trainees, by G. S. Daniels, H. C. Meyers, and E. Churchill.
WADC TR 53-49- Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. Wright
Air Development Center, 1953-
^U.S. Department of the Navy: Weight distribution of recruits.
Slat. Navy Med. 5:2-3, June 1949.
^U.S. Department of the Navy: Unpublished data. New London,
Conn. Medical Research Laboratory, Naval Submarine Base.
^Bayer, L. M. , and Gray, H.: Anthropometric standards for work¬
ing women. Human Biol. 6(3): 472-488, Sept. 1934.
^^Mosscrop, A., Newcomer, M. , and Myers, M. G. : Unpublished
data from Vassar College, 1884-1957, in U.S. Departmentof Agricul¬
ture, Height and Weights of Adults in the United States, by M. L.
Hathaway and E. D. Foard. Home Economics Research Report No.
10. Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office, I960.
^Richards, E., Mott, J., Russell, H., and Ainsworth, D.: Un¬
published data from Smith College, 1899-1956, in U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Height and Weights of Adults in the United States,
by M. L. Hathaway and E. D. Foard. Home Economics Research
Report No. 10. Washington. U.S. Government Printing Office, I960.
^Elbel, E. R., and Barland, J. K.: Height and weight of female
students entering the University of Kansas. University of Kansas
Bulletin of Education 14(1): 19-26, Nov. 1959-
»u.s. Department of the Army: Survey of Body Size of Army
Personnel, Male and Female: 4) Body Dimensions of Army Fe¬
males— Methodology and General Considerations, by F. E. Randall.
Report No. 123, Project E 5 4-46. Natick, Mass. Quartermaster Cli¬
matic Research Laboratory, 1947-
■^U.S. Departmentof the Aimy: Human Body Size in Military Air¬
craft and Personal Equipment, by F. E. Randall, A. Damon, R. S.
Benton, and D. I. Patt. AAF TR 5501. Wright Field, Dayton, Ohi"
Air Materiel Command, 1946.
^U.S. Department of the Air Force: Anthropometry ofWAF Bas¬
ic Trainees, by G. S. Daniels, H. C. Meyers, and S. H. Worrall.
WADC TR 53-12. Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio. Wright
Air Development Center, 1953.
Department of the Navy: Height distribution of recruits.
Stat. Navy Med. 5:2-3, July 1949- •
^U.S. Department of the Navy: Compilation of Anthropometric
Measures on U.S. Navy Pilots, by E. C. Gifford. NAMC-ACEL-437.
Philadelphia. Air Crew Equipment Laboratory, I960.
^Damon, A.: Physique and success in military flying. Am./.
Phys.Anthropol. 13(2): 217-252, June 1955.
Damon, A.: Delineation of the body-build variables associated
with cardiovascular diseases. Ann. Neu> York Acad. Sc., in press.
*®U.S. Department of the Navy: Unpublished data. Pensacola,
Fla. Naval Air Station.
^Carter, I. G.: Physical measurements of Old American college
women. Am.} .Phys.Anthropol. 16(4): 497-514, April-June 1932.
^Bowles, G. T.: New Types of Old Americans at Harvard and
at Eastern Women's Colleges . Cambridge. Harvard University
Press, 1932.
^*Damon, A.: Notes on anthropometric technique: I. Stature
against a wall and standing free. Am.] .Phys.Anthropol. , in press.
^Newman, R. N.: The body sizes of tomorrow’s young men,
Chapter 8, in E. Bennett, J. Degan, and J. Spiegel, eds., Human
Factors in Technology. New York- McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1963.
^Dahlberg, G.: Race, Reason and Rubbish. London. Allen and
Unwin, 1942.
^Hulse, F. S.: Exogamie et heterosis. Archives Suisses d' An -
thropologie GenSrale. 20:103-125, 1957.
OOO
24
DETAILED TABLES
Page
Table 1. Weight in pounds, average weight and selected percentiles, by age and sex:
United States, 1960-62 - 26
2. Height in inches, average height and selected percentiles, by age and sex: United
States, 1960-62 - - - - 27
3. Sitting height erect in inches, average height and selected percentiles, by age
and sex: United States, 1960-62 - 28
4. Sitting height normal in inches, average height and selected percentiles, by age
and sex: United States, 1960-62 - 29
5. Knee height in inches, average height and selected percentiles, by age and sex:
United States, 1960-62 - 30
6. Popliteal height in inches, average height and selected percentiles, by age and
sex: United States, 1960-62 - 31
7. Elbow rest height in inches, average height and selected percentiles, by age and
sex: United States, 1960-62 - 32
8. Thigh clearance height in inches, average height and selected percentiles, by age
and sex: United States, 1960-62 - 33
9. Buttock-knee length in inches, average length and selected percentiles, by age and
sex: United States, 1960-62 - 34
10. Buttock-popliteal length in inches, average length and selected percentiles, by
age and sex: United States, 1960-62 - 35
11. Elbow- to-elbow breadth in inches, average breadth and selected percentiles, by age
and sex: United States, 1960-62 - 36
12. Seat breadth in inches, average breadth and selected percentiles, by age and sex:
United States, 1960-62 - 37
13. Weight distribution in pounds for men: United States, 1960-62 - 38
14. Weight distribution in pounds for women: United States, 1960-62 - 38
15. Height distribution in inches for men: United States, 1960-62 - 39
16. Height distribution in inches for women: United States, 1960-62 - 39
25
Table 1. Weight in pounds, average weight and selected percentiles, by age and sex: United
States, 1960-62
Average weight
and percentile
Total,
18-79
years
18-24
years
25-34
years
35-44
years
45-54
years
55-64
years
65-74
years
75-79
years
MEN
Weight in pounds1
Average weight--
168
160
171
172
172
166
160
150
Percentile2
99 . . .
241
231
248
244
241
230
225
212
95 -
217
214
223
219
219
213
207
198
90 -
205
193
208
207
209
203
198
191
80- - -
190
180
195
193
194
190
183
170
70 . . . .
181
171
185
184
185
180
172
161
60— - -
173
164
177
177
178
172
166
150
50 - -
166
157
169
171
171
165
161
146
40 -
159
151
162
164
163
158
153
141
30 - - -
152
145
154
158
156
151
146
137
20 -
144
140
146
151
149
143
138
132
10- . .
134
131
136
141
139
131
126
120
5 -
126
124
129
134
131
123
117
107
1 -
112
115
114
121
116
112
99
99
WOMEN
Average weight —
142
129
136
144
147
152
146
138
Percentile2
99 -
236
218
239
238
240
244
214
205
95 . — -
199
170
191
204
205
211
196
193
90 -
182
157
173
184
190
195
183
178
80 . . —
164
145
152
165
171
176
169
162
70 -
152
137
143
153
158
165
160
155
60 - -
144
131
136
144
149
154
151
147
50- . - . —
137
126
130
137
143
146
145
137
40- .
131
122
125
131
137
140
138
127
30 .
125
117
120
125
130
134
132
119
20 — . -
118
111
114
119
122
129
125
113
L0 .
111
104
107
113
113
120
114
105
104
99
102
109
106
112
106
95
L - -
93
91
92
100
95
95
92
74
^Weight, partially clothed (see section on "The Measurements").
"Measurement below which the indicated percent of persons in the given age group fall
Table 2. Height in inches, average height and selected percentiles, by age and sex: United States
1960-62
Average height
and percentile
MEN
Average height-
Percentile2
WOMEN
Average height-
Percentile2
Total ,
18-79
years
18-24
years
h' “ ■ s
25-34
years
'j • V
35-44
years
j'v J ’ ;
45-54
years
V > .
55-64
years
i-C. s
65-74
years
Height in
inches1
68.7
! 69.1
/ 68.^
68.2
, 67.4
66.9
, ^
* ■■■
74.8
.76.0
, / 74a
74.0
73.5
72.0
73.1
lf >3.8
l?' “72.5
1 72.7
l
72.2
70.9
72.4
1 '-72.7
lr* i 71.7
1?*’ 71.7
71.0
70.2
70.9
71.4
70.7
70.5
69.8
68.9
70.1
70.5
70.0
69.5
68.8
68.3
69.3
69.8
69.2
68.8
68.3
67.5
68.6
69.0
68.6
68.3
67.6
66.8
67.9
68.4
68.1
67.7
66.8
66.2
67.1
67.7
67.3
66.9
66.0
65.5
66.5
66.8
66.4
66.1
64.7
■ / i
64.8
65.4
,r 65.5
'65.2
1 64.8
i 63.'7
64.1
64.3
//'64:4
1 L ' .
64.2
■' 6 64 .0
62.9
62.7
62.6
62.6
62.3
i ■ -
62.3
61.2
f *,
60.8
63.8
63.7
63.5
62.9
62.4
61.5
69.3
69.0
69.0
68.7
68.7
67.0
67.9
67.3
67.2
67.2
66.6
65.5
66.8
66.6
66.6
66.1
65.6
64.7
65.9
65.7
65.5
64.8
64.3
63.7
65.0
64.9
64.7
64.1
63.6
62.8
64.5
64.4
64.1
63.4
62.9
62.1
63.9
63.7
63.4
62.8
62.3
61.6
63.0
62.9
62.8
62.3
61.8
61.1
62.3
62.4
62.2
61.7
61.3
60.2
61.6
61.8
61.4
60.9
60.6
59.5
60.7
60.6
60.4
59.8
59.4
58.3
60.0
59.7
59.6
59.1
58.4
57.5
58.4
58.1
57.6
57.3
56.0
55.8
1 Height, without shoes.
Measurement below which the indicated percent of persons in the given age group fall.
Table 3. Sitting height erect in inches, average height and selected percentiles, by age and sex
United States, 1960-62
Average height
and percentile
MEN
Average height-
Percentile 1
WOMEN
Average height--
Percentile 1
18-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65-74
years
years
years
years
years
years
Height in inches
35.9
35.7
35.2
34.7
34.2
38.9
38.9
38.7
37.7
37.6
38.0
38.0
37.7
36.9
36.7
37.7
37.6
37.1
36.5
36.1
37.1
36.9
36.6
35.9
35.3
36.7
36.5
36.1
35.5
34.9
36.3
36.0
35.7
35.1
34.6
36.0
35.7
35.3
34.8
34.3
35.6
35.3
35.0
34.4
34.1
35.2
35.0
34.5
34.1
33.6
34.8
34.5
34.1
33.7
33.2
34.2
34.1
33.3
33.1
32.4
33.7
33.5
32.9
32.5
31.8
32.2
32.8
31.4
31.3
27.7
33.7
33.4
33.0
32.1
31.7
36.8
36.4
36.4
35.8
35.7
35.8
35.6
35.4
34.5
34.8
35.4
35.0
34.8
33.9
34.0
34.8
34.6
34.2
33.4
33.3
34.4
34.1
33.8
32.9
32.8
34.1
33.8
33.4
32.6
32.5
33.7
33.5
33.0
32.2
32.1
33.4
33.2
32.7
31.9
31.6
33.1
32.8
32.3
31.5
31.1
32.6
32.3
31.9
31.0
30.4
32.1
31.7
31.2
30.3
29.2
31.5
31.2
30.7
29.7
28.1
30.3
30.1 1
30.0
28.6
17.8
1 Measurement below which the indicated percent of persons in the given age group fall.
Table 4. Sitting height normal in inches, average height and selected percentiles, by age and
sex: United States, 1960-62
Average height
and percentile
i
Total ,
18-79
years
18-24
years
25-34
years
35-44
years
45-54
years
55-64
years
65-74
years
75-79
years
MEN
Height in inches
Average height--
34.1
34.1
34.4
34.2
34.1
33.8
33.4
33.0
Percentile 1
99 -
37.6
37.8
37.8
37.7
37.7
36.9
36.4
36.7
95 - - ---
36.6
36.7
36.8
36.7
36.7
36.0
35.7
35.8
90 -
35.9
36.0
36.3
36.2
36.0
35.6
35.1
35.2
80 -
35.3
35.4
35.6
35.5
35.5
35.0
34.6
34.6
70 -
34.8
34.9
35.1
34.9
35.0
34.6
34.1
34.1
60 -
34.5
34.5
34.8
34.6
34.6
34.3
33.8
33.7
50 -
34.1
34.2
34.4
34.3
34.2
33.9
33.4
33.3
40 -
33.7
33.8
34.0
34.0
33.8
33.5
33.1
32.9
30 - -
33.3
33.3
33.6
33.5
33.4
33.2
32.7
32.5
20 - -
32.9
32.9
33.2
33.1
32.9
32.6
32.4
32.1
10 -
32.2
32.3
32.6
32.4
32.3
31.8
31.9
30.7
5 -
31.6
31.9
32.1
32.0
31.8
31.3
31.2
29.8
1 . - .
30.4
30.5
31.0
30.8
30.8
30.2
30.1
26.7
WOMEN
Average height--
32.2
32.5
32.6
32.6
32.2
31.9
31.1
30.5
Percentile1
99 . - .
35.7
35.7
35.9
35.8
35.5
35.4
34.9
35.0
95 -
34.7
34.8
34.9
34.9
34.6
34.4
33.9
33.4
90 -
34.1
34.3
34.5
34.4
34.0
33.8
33.1
32.8
80 - -
33.6
33.7
33.8
33.8
33.5
33.2
32.5
32.3
70 -
33.1
33.4
33.4
33.3
32.8
31.9
31.8
60 -
32.7
33.0
33.0
32.9
32.7
32.4
31.6
31.4
50 -
32.3
32.6
32.6
32.6
32.3
32.1
31.2
31.0
40 -
31.9
32.3
32.3
32.3
32.0
31.7
30.8
30.6
30 -
31.5
31.9
31.9
31.9
31.5
31.3
30.4
30.1
20 -
31.0
31.3
31.4
31.4
31.1
30.8
30.0
29.2
10 .
30.2
30.6
30.7
30.8
30.3
30.2
29.3
27.6
5 .
29.6
30.1
30.1
30.2
29.7
29.7
28.7
27.1
1 -
28.2
29.2
28.9
29.2
28.7
28.3
27.0
14.8
'Measurement below which the indicated percent of persons in the given age group fall.
29
Table 5. Knee height in inches, average height and selected percentiles, by age and sex: United
States, 1960-62
Average height
and percentile
Total,
18-79
years
18-24
years
25-34
years
1
35-44
years
45-54
years
55-64
years
65-74
years
75-79
years
MEN
Height in
inches
Average height--
21.3
21.4
21.6
21.4
21.3
21.1
21.0
20.6
Percentile'
99 -
24.1
23.9
24.6
24.4
23.9
24.0
23.7
23.3
95 -
23.4
23.4
23.7
23.4
23.3
23.1
22.9
22.7
90 . .
22.9
22.9
23.3
22.9
22.8
22.8
22.5
22.2
80 - - -
22.4
22.5
22.7
22.5
22.4
22.2
21.9
21.7
70 -
22.0
22.1
22.2
22.1
22.0
21.8
21.6
21.4
60 -
21.7
21.8
21.9
21.8
21.7
21.4
21.3
21.0
50 -
21.4
21.5
21.6
21.5
21.4
21.1
21.0
20.7
40 -
21.1
21.2
21.3
21.2
21.1
20.8
20.7
20.4
30 -
20.7
20.8
21.1
20.8
20.7
20.5
20.5
20.0
20 . .
20.4
20.5
20.6
20.4
20.3
20.2
20.2
19.6
10 -
20.0
20.1
20.2
20.0
19.9
19.6
19.9
19.2
5 - - -
19.3
19.4
19.8
19.4
19.3
19.1
19.2
19.0
1 . . .
18.3
18.3
19.0
18.4
18.2
18.1
18.2
18.0
WOMEN
Average height--
19.6
19.7
19.7
19.7
19.5
19.4
19.3
19.4
Percentile'
99 -
22.4
22.7
22.5
22.4
22.5
21.9
22.0
21.5
95 -
21.5
21.6
21.6
21.5
21. '6
21.4
21.0
20.9
90 -
21.0
21.0
21.0
21.0
21.0
20.9
20.7
20.7
80 - - -
20.5
20.6
20.6
20.6
20.5
20.4
20.1
20.2
70 -
20.1
20.3
20.3
20.2
20.1
20.0
19.8
19.9
60 -
19.8
20,0
20.0
19.9
19.8
19.7
19.5
19.6
50 -
19.6
19.7
19.7
19.6
19.5
19.5
19.2
19.4
40 -
19.3
19.5
19.4
19.4
19.2
19.2
19.0
19.2
30 -
19.1
19.2
19.2
19.1
19.0
19.0
18.7
18.9
20 -
18.6
18.9
18.8
18.8
18.5
18.6
18.4
18.4
10 -
18.2
18.4
18.3
18.3
18.1
18.2
18.1
18.0
5 -
17.9
18.1
18.0
18.0
17.6
17.8
17.8
17.3
1 -
17.1
17.3
17.2
17.2
17.1
16.6
17.1
16.3
'Measurement below which the indicated percent of persons in the given age group fall.
Table 6. Popliteal height in inches, average height and selected percentiles, by age and sex:
United States, 1960-62
Average height
and percentile
Total ,
18-79
years
18-24
years
25-34
years
35-44
years
45-54
years
55-64
years
65-74
years
75-79
years
MEN
Height in inches
Average height--
17.3
'47.5
17.6
17.3
17.2
17.1
17.0
16.6
Percentile1
99 - -
20.0
20.4
20.6
19.9
19.9
19.8
19.8
19.3
95 -
19.3
19.6
19.7
19.1
19.1
19.0
18.9
18.4
90 - - ---
18.8
19.0
19.2
18.8
18.6
18.6
18.4
17.9
80 . . .
18.2
18.5
18.6
18.2
17.9
18.0
17.8
17.4
70 -
17.8
18.0
18.1
17.8
17.7
17.7
17.6
17.0
60 -
17.6
17.7
17.8
17.6
17.5
17.4
17.3
16.8
50 -
17.3
17.5
17.5
17.3
17.2
17.1
17.1
16.6
40 -
17.0
17.2
17.3
17.0
17.0
16.9
16.8
16.4
30 . . .
16.7
17.0
17.0
16.7
16.7
16.5
16.5
16.2
20 -
16.4
16.6
16.6
16.4
16.3
16.2
16.2
15.9
10 -
16.0
16.2
16.2
16.1
16.0
15.8
15.6
15.4
5 -
15.5
. 16.0
16.0
15.6
15.5
15.3
15.2
15.2
1 -
14.9
15.2
15.1
15.0
14.7
14.9
14.2
15.0
WOMEN
Average height —
15.6
16.0
15.7
15.6
15.5
15.4
15.3
15.5
Percentile 1
99 . .
18.0
18.5
18.2
17.9
18.3
17.9
17.9
17.8
95 -
17.5
17.8
17.5
17.5
17.5
17.1
17.0
17.2
90 - - -
17.0
17.4
17.0
17.0
17.0
16.8
16.8
16.9
80 . . .
16.6
16.9
16.7
16.6
16.6
16.4
16.3
16.6
70 -
16.3
16.6
16.4
16.3
16.2
16.1
15.9
16.2
60 -
16.0
16.4
16.1
16.0
15.9
15.7
15.6
15.9
50 - -
15.7
16.1
15.8
15.7
15.5
15.4
15.3
15.6
40 -
15.4
15.8
15.6
15.4
15.2
15.0
15.0
15.4
30 -
15.1
15.5
15.3
15.1
14.9
14.7
14.7
15.1
20 -
14.7
15.2
15.0
14.7
14.5
14.4
14.4
14.6
10 -
14.2
14.6
14.4
14.2
14.2
14.1
14.1
14.1
5 -
14.0
14.2
14.1
14.0
13.8
13.6
13.9
13.5
1 -
13.1
13.5
13.2
13.1
13.1
13.1
13.0
9.6
1 Measurement below which the indicated percent of persons in the given age group fall.
Table 8. Thigh clearance height in inches, average height and selected percentiles, by age and
sex: United States, 1960-62
Average height
and percentile
^ H
18-24
years
^9
35-44
years
45-54
years
75-79
years
MEN
/
Height in
inches
Average height —
5.7
5.7
5.8
5.8
5.6
5.5
5.4
5.2
Percentile1
99 . . .
7.7
7.7
7.9
7.8
7.1
7.4
7.0
7.2
95 - -
6.9
6.9
7.0
7.0
6.9
6.8
6.7
6.6
90 -
6.7
6.8
6.9
6.8
6.7
6.6
6.5
6.1
80 -
6.4
6.4
6 .6
6.5
6.3
6.1
6.0
5.8
70 - -
6.0
6.1
6.3
6.2
6.0
5.9
5.8
5.6
60 -
5.8
5.9
6.0
6.0
5.8
5.7
5.6
5.4
50 -
5.7
5.7
5.8
5.8
5.6
5.5
5.4
5.2
40 - - —
5.5
5.5
5.6
5.6
5.5
5.3
5.3
5.0
30 -
5.3
5.3
5.4
5.4
5.3
5.2
5.1
4.7
20- - -
5.1
5.1
5.2
5.2
5.1
4.9
4.8
4.5
10 — . .
4.7
4.7
4.9
5.0
4.9
4.5
4.4
4.2
4.3
4.3
4.5
4.6
4.4
4.2
4.2
4.1
1 -
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.1
4.0
4.0
3.9
WOMEN
Average height —
5.4
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.5
5.4
5.3
5.2
Percentile1
99 .
7.7
7.0
7.7
7.8
7.7
8.3
7.0
6.9
95 -
6.9
6.7
6.9
7.0
6.9
6.9
6.6
6.5
90 -
6.6
6.3
6.6
6.7
6.6
6.6
6.2
6.1
80 -
6.0
5.9
6.0
6.3
6.1
6.0
5.9
5.8
70 -
5.8
5.7
5.8
5.9
5.9
5.8
5.7
5.6
60 -
5.6
5.5
5.6
5.7
5.7
5.6
5.5
5.4
50 -
5.4
5.4
5.4
5.5
5.5
5.4
5.3
5.2
40 -
5.2
5.2
5.2
5.3
5.3
5.2
5.1
4.9
30 -
5.1
5.0
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.0
4.9
4.7
20 -
4.7
4.7
4.7
4.9
4.8
4.7
4.6
4.4
10 -
4.3
4.3
4.4
4.4
4.4
4.3
4.2
4.1
5 -
4.1
4.1
4.2
4.2
4.2
4.1
4.1
4.0
1 - - —
3.8
3.6
4.0
4.0
4.0
3.5
3.4
3.2
1 Measurements below which the indicated percent of persons in the given age group fall.
33
Table 9. Buttock-knee length in inches, average length and selected percentiles, by age and sex:
United States, 1960-62
Average length
and percentile
Total ,
18-79
years
18-24
years
25-34
years
35-44
years
45-54
years
55-64
years
65-74
years
75-79
years
MEN
Length :in inches
Average length--
23.3
23.3
23.6
23.3
23.3
23.0
23.0
22.7
Percentile'
99 -
26.3
26.5
26.8
26.2
26.1
25.8
25.9
24.9
95 - - -
25.2
25.4
25.7
25.1
25.2
24.9
24.8
24.7
90 -
24.8
24.9
25.0
24.8
24.8
24.6
24.4
24.4
80 -
24.4
24.4
24.6
24.4
24.4
24.1
23.9
23.9
70 . .
23.9
23.9
24.2
24.0
24.0
23.7
23.6
23.3
60 - -
23.6
23.6
23.9
23.7
23.7
23.4
23.3
22.9
50 - - -
23.3
23.3
23.6
23.4
23.4
23.1
23.0
22.6
40 . . .
23.0
23.0
23.3
23.1
23.1
22.8
22.7
22.3
30--- . .
22.7
22.7
22.9
22.7
22.7
22.4
22.4
22.0
20-- . - .
22.3
22.3
22.5
22.4
22.4
22.1
22.2
21.6
10 -
21.8
21.9
22.1
21.9
21.9
21.5
21.5
21.2
5- . -
21.3
21.3
21.6
21.3
21.3
21.2
21.0
21.0
1 . . -
20.3
20.4
20.8
20.3
20.4
19.6
20.1
20.2
WOMEN
Average length--
22.3
22.3
22.4
22.5
22.3
22.3
22.2
22.0
Percentile'
99 - -
25.7
25.6
25.6
25.9
25.5
25.7
25.9
24.7
95 . .
24.6
24.6
24.6
24.7
24.6
24.7
24.6
23.9
90- - . .
24.0
23.9
24.0
24.0
24.1
24.0
23.9
23.5
80 -
23.4
23.3
23.5
23.5
23.5
23.4
23.4
22.9
70 - - —
22.9
22.9
23.0
23.0
22.9
22.9
22.9
22.6
60 - -
22.6
22.5
22.7
22.7
22.6
22.6
22.6
22.4
50—- . .
22.4
22.2
22.4
22.5
22.4
22.3
22.2
22.2
40 — . ---
22.1
21.9
22.1
22.2
22.1
22.0
21.9
21.9
30 - -
21.7
21.6
21.8
21.9
21.7
21.7
21.5
21.4
20 -
21.3
21.3
21.4
21.5
21.3
21.3
21.2
21.0
10 . . -
20.9
20 .8
21.0
21.1
20.9
20.9
20.6
20.3
5 -
20.4
20 .3
20.5
20.5
20.3
20 .3
20.2
19.9
1 -
19.5
19 .3
20.0
20.0
19.4
19.4
19.4
18.5
'Measurement below which the indicated percent of persons in the given age group fall.
34
Table 10. Buttock-popliteal length in inches, average length and selected percentiles, by age and
sex: United States, 1960-62
Average length
and percentile
MEN
Average length-
Percentile 1
Total,
18-79
18-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65-74
years
years
years
years
years
years
WOMEN
Average length-
Percentile1
Length in inches
19.4 f 19
19.4
19
.3
19
.2
18.9
22.0
22
.2
21
.9
22.1
21.5
21
.5
20
.9
21.2
20.9
20
.9
20
.7
20.8
20.5
20
.4
20
.3
20.2
20.1
20
.0
19
.9
19.7
19.7
19
.7
19
.6
19.2
19.5
19
.4
19
.3
18.9
19.2
19
0
19
.0
18.6
18.8
18
6
18
.6
18.3
18.3
18
2
18
.3
17.9
17.8
17
6
17
.8
17.3
17.4
17
2
17
3
17.0
17.0
16
4
16
3
16.2
18.9
18
9
18
8
18.6
22.0
22
0
21
9
20.8
20.9
21
0
20
9
20.0
20.6
20
5
20
4
19.9
20.0
19
9
19
8
19.6
19.6
19
5
19
4
19.3
19.3
19
2
19
1
19.0
18.9
18
9
18
8
18.7
18.6
18
6
18
5
18.3
18.2
18
3
18
2
18.0
17.8
18
0
17
8
17.6
17.3
17
4
17
3
17.2
17.0
17
1
16
9
17.0
15.8
16.
1
16.
1
14.7
Measurement below which the indicated percent of persons in the given age group fall
erage breadth and selected percentiles, by age and
States, 1960-62
35-44
years
45-54
years
55-64
years
65-74
years
75-79
years
Breadth in inches
16.8
16.9
16.8
16.9
16.4
21.5
21.8
22.0
21.0
20.7
20.0
20.0
20.0
19.9
19.5
19.2
19.2
19.3
19.3
18.7
18.3
18.4
18.3
18.5
17.8
17.7
17.8
17.7
17.8
17.1
17.2
17.3
17.2
17.3
16.7
16.7
16.8
16.7
16.8
16.4
16.3
16.3
16.1
16.3
16.0
15.9
15.9
15.6
15.9
15.5
15.3
15.3
15.2
15.3
14.9
14.6
14.6
14.5
14.6
14.3
14.1
14.1
14.1
14.0
14.0
13.1
13.2
13.2
13.2
12.4
15.3
15.8
16.4
16.4
15.8
21.5
21.7
21.8
20.8
19.8
19.3
19.7
20.2
19.7
19.1
18.2
18.7
19.3
18.8
18.1
16.9
17.6
18.2
17.9
17.5
16.0
16.8
17.4
17.4
16.9
15.5
16.0
16.8
16.9
16.3
14.9
15.5
16.3
16.4
15.7
14.5
15.1
15.8
16.0
15.3
14.1
14.6
15.2
15.5
14.7
13.6
14.1
14.7
14.9
14.2
13.1
13.3
14.0
14.2
13.5
12.5
12.7
13.4
13.7
13.1
11.7 1
11.6
12.3
12.4 1
12.3
of persons in the given age group fall.
Table 12. Seat breadth in inches, average breadth and selected percentiles, by age and sex: United
States, 1960-62
Average breadth 18-79’
and percentile v
18-24
25-34
35-44
45-54
55-64
65-74
years
years
years
years
years
years
MEN
Average breadth-
Percentile1
Breadth in inches
WOMEN
Average breadth-
Percentile1
13.6
14.0
14.1
14.1
14.0
13.9
17.3
17.4
17.1
16.9
16.9
16.6
15.8
16.0
15.9
16.0
15.9
15.7
15.0
15.6
15.6
15.7
15.6
15.1
14.6
14.9
15.0
15.1
15.0
14.7
14.1
14.6
14.7
14.8
14.6
14.5
13.8
14.3
14.4
14.5
14.3
14.2
13.5
14.0
14.1
14.2
14.0
13.9
13.3
13.7
13.8
13.9
13.7
13.6
13.0
13.4
13.5
13.5
13.4
13.4
12.6
13.1
13.3
13.2
13.1
13.1
12.2
12.5
12.9
12.6
12.6
12.6
12.0
12.2
12.4
12.2
12.2
12.2
11.3
11.7
12.0
11.5
11.6
11.4
13.8
14.2
14.6
14.7
14.8
14.7
18.4
19.0
19.2
19.0
18.7
18.2
15.9
16.8
17.3
17.6
17.4
17.3
15.4
16.0
16.5
16.7
16.8
16.7
14.8
15.3
15.7
15.8
16.0
15.9
14.4
14.8
15.1
15.4
15.6
15.4
14.1
14.4
14.8
15.0
15.1
14.9
13.8
14.0
14.5
14.6
14.7
14.6
13.5
13.7
14.2
14.2
14.3
14.3
13.2
13.4
13.8
13.8
13.9
14.0
12.8
13.1
13.4
13.4
13.6
13.5
12.3
12.6
12.9
13.0
13.2
12.9
12.1
12.2
12.4
12.4
12.9
12.4
11.3
11.5
12.0
12.0
12.1
12.1
Measurement below which the indicated percent of persons in the given age group fall.
Table 13. Weight distribution in pounds for men: United States, 1960-62
Weight
Total,
18-79
years
18-24
years
25-34
years
35-44
years
45-54
years
55-64
years
65-74
years
75-79
years
Number of persons in thousands
Total -
52,744
7,139
10,281
11,373
10,034
7,517
4,972
1,428
Under 100 pounds
124
_
8
_
21
22
57
16
100-109 pounds--
270
- :
13
46
31
19
82
79
110-119 pounds —
843
145
189
42
83
174
162
48
120-129 pounds--
2,265
524
337
210
299
492
323
80
130-139 pounds--
4,249
798
763
737
631
566
441
313
140-149 pounds--
6,520
1,305
1,168
1,017
1,039
921
749
321
150-159 pounds--
7,573
1,122
1,403
1,820
1,468
1,049
579
132
160-169 pounds--
7,693
1,052
1,364
1,672
1,357
1,100
997
151
170-179 pounds--
6,860
766
1,392
1,799
1,428
922
468
85
180-189 pounds--
5,800
656
1,163
1,458
1,333
769
371
50
190-199 pounds--
3,911
208
881
964
863
586
311
98
200-209 pounds--
2,821
154
696
692
539
455
247
38
210-219 pounds--
1,702
137
323
403
475
245
102
17
220-229 pounds--
1,096
198
237
234
243
114
70
-
230-239 pounds---
453
21
184
129
110
9
-
-
240-249 pounds--
311
38
77
82
92
9
13
-
250+ pounds -
253
15
83
68
22
65
“
“
Table 14. Weight distribution in pounds for women: United States, 1960-62
Weight
Women,
18-79
years
18-24
years
25-34
years
35-44
years
45-54
years
55-64
years
65-74
years
75-79
years
Number
of persons
in thousands
Total -
58,343
8,430
11,291
12,325
10,542
8,121
6,192
1,442
Under 90 pounds-
286
40
51
_
17
77
42
59
90-99 pounds -
1,167
415
349
104
180
8
85
26
100-109 pounds--
3,898
1,076
991
593
570
228
321
119
110-119 pounds--
7,652
1,494
1,991
1,938
1,051
497
427
254
120-129 pounds--
9,475
1,949
2,251
2,036
1,328
946
799
166
130-139 pounds--
9,488
1,310
1,893
2,058
1,555
1,536
986
150
140-149 pounds--
8,039
975
1,351
1,540
1,806
1,278
962
127
150-159 pounds--
5,112
492
694
1,179
1,072
736
719
220
160-169 pounds--
3,873
255
501
789
769
737
679
143
170-179 pounds--
3,204
199
346
681
736
727
471
44
180-189 pounds--
1,845
32
283
434
419
361
274
42
190-199 pounds--
1,500
37
190
257
400
366
188
62
200-209 pounds--
1,052
48
139
243
232
209
151
30
210-219 pounds--
634
29
80
148
163
142
72
-
220-229 pounds--
372
23
37
162
69
65
16
-
230-239 pounds--
291
29
35
49
71
107
-
_
240 - 249 pounds - -
145
-
38
29
28
50
-
-
250-259 pounds--
101
18
-
40
-
43
-
-
260-269 pounds--
80
-
26
14
40
-
-
-
270-279 pounds--
41
9
-
24
-
8
-
-
280+ pounds -
88
“
45
7
36
“
“
-
38
Table 15. Height distribution in inches for men: United States, 1960-62
Height
Men,
18-79
years
18-24
years
25-34
years
35-44
years
45-54
years
55-64
years
65-74
years
75-79
years
Number
of persons in thousands
Total -
52,744
7,139
10,281
11,373
10,034
7,517
4,972
1,428
Under 60 inches-
90
-
-
10
22
-
37
21
60 inches -
100
-
8
9
16
37
16
14
61 inches -
485
11
15
42
30
173
107
107
62 inches -
874
98
127
151
110
184
122
82
63 inches -
1,720
157
164
224
304
527
166
178
64 inches -
3,691
286
487
550
664
818
714
172
65 inches -
3,488
360
453
698
772
540
614
51
66 inches -
7,021
1,129
1,015
1,384
1,240
960
920
373
67 inches -
6,249
908
1,121
1,325
1,281
927
556
131
68 inches -
9,379
1,057
1,794
2,183
2,086
1,313
824
122
69 inches -
5,421
895
1,233
1,342
926
632
320
73
70 inches -
6,239
881
1,456
1,633
1,216
641
349
63
71 inches -
3,216
375
800
1,018
508
338
177
-
72 inches -
2,817
602
820
493
524
305
32
41
73 inches -
1,103
225
348
186
235
91
18
-
74 inches -
581
101
311
96
55
18
-
-
75 inches -
126
38
29
29
30
-
-
-
76+ inches -
144
16
100
-
15
13
“
“
Table 16. Height distribution in inches for women: United States, 1960-62
Height
Women ,
18-79
years
'
18-24
years
25-34
years
35-44
years
—
45-54
years
55-64
years
65-74
years
75-79
years
Number
of persons in thousands
Total -
58,343
8,430
11,291
12,325
10,542
8,121
6,192
1,442
Under 53 inches-
57
_
_
_
40
_
17
53 inches -
44
-
-
-
-
-
-
44
54 inches -
43
-
-
17
18
8
-
-
55 inches -
194
-
15
-
34
32
81
32
56 inches -
193
9
24
49
-
48
43
20
57 inches -
994
18
63
97
182
143
392
99
58 inches -
1,259
152
76
109
188
318
342
74
59 inches -
3,801
255
582
581
788
620
842
133
60 inches -
4,482
578
613
881
985
654
677
94
61 inches -
8,358
1,059
1,153
1,622
1,387
1,671
1,216
250
62 inches -
10,498
1,312
2,218
2,041
2,237
1,518
874
298
63 inches -
7,277
938
1,293
1,703
1,359
1,148
668
168
64 inches -
9,023
1,631
2,065
2,191
1,521
865
599
151
65 inches -
4,738
896
1,285
1,043
723
442
305
44
66 inches -
4,389
896
1,222
1,324
528
325
94
-
67 inches -
1,400
288
369
299
296
138
10
-
68 inches -
1,199
300
208
256
272
106
39
18
69 inches -
191
54
31
91
15
-
-
-
70 inches -
136
33
36
12
-
45
10
-
71+ inches -
67
11
38
9
9
-
“
39
APPENDIX II
SURVEY DESIGN, RESPONSE, AND SAMPLING VARIABILITY
Survey Design
The sampling plan of the first cycle of the Health
Examination Survey followed a highly stratified multi¬
stage probability design in which a sample of the civilian,
noninstitutional population of the conterminous United
States, 18-79 years of age, was selected. In the first
stage of this plan a sample of 42 primary sampling
units (PSU's) was drawn from among the 1,900 geo¬
graphic units into which the United States was dividied.
Here a PSU is either a standard metropolitan statistical
area or one to three contiguous counties. Later stages
result in the random selection of clusters of typically
about four persons from a small neighborhood within
the PSU. The total sampling included some 7 ,700 persons
in 29 different States. The detailed structure of the
design and the conduct of the survey are described in
references 1 and 2.
Reliability
Measurement processes employed in the Survey
were highly standardized and closely controlled. This
does not mean, of course, that the correspondence
between the real world and the survey results is exact.
Data from the survey are imperfect for three major
reasons: (1) results are subject to sampling error; (2)
the actual conduct of a survey never agrees perfectly
with the design; and (3) the measurement processes
themselves are inexact, even though standardized and
controlled.
A first-stage evaluation of the Survey is reported
in reference 2, which deals largely with an analysis of
the faithfulness with which the sampling design was
carried out. This study notes that out of the 7,700 sample
persons, the 6,670 who were examined— a response
rate of over 86 percent— gave evidence that they were
a highly representative sample of the civilian, non¬
institutional population of the United States. The age and
sex distribution of these adults examined in Cycle I of
the Health Examination Survey is as follows:
Table I. Number of examinees by age and sex:
Health Examination Survey, 1960-62
Age
Total
Men
Women
Number
of examinees
Total-18-79 years - -
6,672
3,091
3,581
18-24 years -
945
411
534
25-34 years -
1,421
675
746
35-44 years -
1,487
703
784
45-54 years -
1,252
547
705
55-64 years -
861
418
443
65-74 years -
564
265
299
75-79 years -
142
72
70
Imputation for the nonrespondents was accomplished by
attributing to the nonexamined persons the character¬
istics of comparable examined persons as described in
reference 2. The specific procedure used amounted to
inflating the sampling weight for each examined person
to compensate for sample persons at that stand of the
same age-sex group who .were not examined. This in¬
flation procedure would be expected to introduce little,
if any, distortion, judging from the data obtained in the
physician followup. Here the height and weight data for
the subsample of examined and nonexamined sample
persons were found to be in good agreement. Measuring
techniques used by the physicians and in the examination
were also apparently comparable, since physicians' re¬
ports showed, on the average, good agreement with the
examination findings on height and weight.
In addition to persons not examined at all, there
were some whose examination was incomplete in one
procedure or another. Age, sex, and race were known
for every examined person, but for a number of exam¬
inees one or more of the anthropometric measurements
were not available. The extent of these missing measure¬
ments is indicated in table II.
42
Table II. Number of examinees with one or more
missing anthropometric measurements: Health
Examination Survey, 1960-62
Measurement missing
Total examinees
All measurements -
Height and weight -
Height but not weight
Weight but not height
Number
of
examinees
137
2
4
12
14
Sitting height erect and normal -
Sitting height erect but not normal-
Sitting height normal but not erect-
22
8
11
Knee and popliteal height -
Knee but not popliteal height
Popliteal but not knee height
17
13
5
Thigh clearance
18
Buttock-knee and buttock-popliteal
length - 37
Buttock-knee but not buttock-pop¬
liteal length - 7
Buttock-popliteal but not buttock -
knee length - 4
Seat breadth-
12
Elbow-to-elbow breadth-
Elbow rest height -
18
16
There were, in addition to these 137 examinees, 21
for whom one of the recorded measurements was obvi¬
ously in error— for example, popliteal height the same
as or only one-half of an inch shorter than knee height,
and similar discrepancies.
Estimates for missing (and erroneous) data were
generally made subjectively on the basis of a multiple
regression-type decision, substituting for the missing
measurements those for an individual who was of the
same age, sex, and race, and who hadother dimensions
similar to the ones available for the examinee with in¬
complete data. The findings were essentially unaffected
by the few deviations that had to be made in the standard
measurement techniques for amputees and others.
For those with no measurements available, a re¬
spondent of the same age-sex-race group was selected
at random, and his measurements were assigned to the
nonexamined person.
Sampling and Measurement Error
In the present report, reference has been made to
minimizing bias and variability of the measurement
techniques.
The probability design of the Survey makes possible
the calculation of sampling errors. Traditionally, the
sampling error is used to determine how imprecise the
survey results may be because they come from a sample
rather than from the measurements of all elements in
the universe.
The presentation of sampling errors for a study of
the type of the Health Examination Survey is difficult
for at least three reasons: (1) measurement error and
"pure" sampling error are confounded in the data — it
is not easy to find a procedure which will either com¬
pletely include both or treat one or the other separately;
(2) the survey design and estimation procedure are
complex and accordingly require computationally in¬
volved techniques for the calculation of variances; and
(3) from the survey come thousands of statistics, many
for subclasses of the population for which there are a
small number of sample cases. Estimates of sampling
error are obtained from the sample data and are them¬
selves subject to sampling error, which may be large
when the number of cases in the cell is small or, even
occasionally, when the number of cases is substantial.
Estimates of approximate sampling variability for
selected statistics used in this report are presented
in table III for the averages and in table IV for percent¬
ages. These estimates have been prepared by a repli¬
cation technique , which yields overall variability through
observation of variability among random subsamples of
the total sample. The method reflects both "pure"
sampling variance and a part of the measurement
variance.
In accordance with usual practice, Che interval
estimate for any statistic may be considered to be the
range within one standard error of the tabulated
statistic, with 68 percent confidence; or the range within
two standard errors of the tabulated statistic, with 95
percent confidence.
An overestimate of the standard error of a differ¬
ence d-x-y of two statistics x and y is generally
given by the formula s «(x2 vz+ y2 v2 ) 1/2 where v anu
~i ~ x ~ l -x
v are the relative sampling errors, respectively, of
x ” and y
For example, table 2 shows the average height of
men 18-24 years of age to be 68.7 inches (x)and that
of men 25-34 years of age to be 69.1 inches ( y i .
Table III gives relative sampling errors of v- - 0.003
and v- - 0.002 for the respective averages. The formula
yields the estimate for the standard error of the differ¬
ence (d - 0.4 inch) as sd - 0.19. Here the difference
is more than twice the sampling error and, hence, is
significant.
Confidence limits for the quantile measures — per¬
centiles, deciles, and medians— presented in this re¬
port may be estimated from the relative standard errors
for the percentages shown in table IV. For example, to
determine the two-standard-error confidence limits
for the 90th percentile (the point below which 90 percent
of the population fall) of height for women 35-44 years
43
Table III. Relative sampling error of averages for weight, height, and selected body dimensions
of adults, by age: United States, 1960-62
Measurement
Total,
18-79
years
18-24
years
25-34
years
35-44
years
45-54
years
55-64
years
65-74
years
75-79
years
Relative sampling error for
men or
women
Weight -
0.002
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.004
0.005
Height -
0.001
0.003
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.003
0.005
Sitting height, erect -
0.001
0.003
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.005
Sitting height, normal -
0.002
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.005
Knee height -
0.002
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.010
Popliteal height -
0.002
0.004
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.004
0.010
Elbow rest height -
0.004
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.010
0.020
Thigh clearance -
0.004
0.010
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.010
0.010
0.020
Buttock-knee length -
0.002
0.003
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.003
0.010
Buttock-popliteal length -
0.002
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.003
0.010
Elbow-elbow breadth -
0.003
0.010
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.005
0.010
0.020
Seat breadth -
0.003
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.004
0.010
Table IV. Relative sampling error for percentages for weight, height, and the 10 other body di¬
mensions for adults: United States, 1960-62
Percentage
Relative sampling error for average
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.010
0.020
Corresponding relative
sampling error for percentage
1 .
0.100
0.200
0.300
0.400
0.500
1.000
2.000
5 . . . .
0.080
0.100
0.200
0.240
0.300
0.400
0.600
10 . .
0.050
0.060
0.150
0.200
0.250
0.250
0.400
20 . - . - . —
0.040
0.050
0.100
0.125
0.150
0.150
0.250
0.020
0.025
0.050
0.060
0.070
0.080
0.140
80 . . . - .
0.010
0.012
0.025
0.031
0.038
0.038
0.062
90 . . - .
0.006
0.007
0.017
0.022
0.028
0.027
0.044
95 - - -
0.004
0.005
0.010
0.013
0.016
0.020
0.032
99 . . .
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.010
0.020
of age, the following steps are taken: From table 2, the
90th percentile ( x ) is observed to be 66.6 inches; table
IV shows that the relative standard error of this per¬
centage or percentile is 0.007 ( vx ) ; the standard error
(S „ - xvx),then, would be 1.53, and the two-standard-
error confidence limit, 87-93 percent. These limits
correspond to heights of 66.3 and 67.0 as obtained from
table 2 by interpolation.
Small Categories
In some tables magnitudes are shown for cells in
which the sample size is so small that the sampling
error may be several times as great as the statistic
itself. Obviously, in such instances the statistic has no
meaning in itself except to indicate that the true quantity
is small. Such numbers, if shown, have been included
in the belief that they help to convey an impression of
the overall story of the table.
O O O
44
* U.S. GOVERNMENT PRtNTING OFFICE : 1965 0-772-381
REPORTS FROM THE NATIONAL CENTER FOR HEALTH STATISTICS
Public Health Service Publication No. 1000
Series 1. Programs and collection procedures
No. 1. Origin, Program, and Operation of the U.S. National Health Survey. 35 cents.
No. 2. Health Survey Procedure: Concepts, Questionnaire Development, and Definitions in the Health Interview Survey. 45 cents.
No. 3. Development and Maintenance of a National Inventory' of Hospitals and Institutions. 25 cents.
Series 2. Data evaluation and methods research
No. 1. Comparison of Two-Vision Testing Devices. 30 cents.
No. 2. Measurement of Personal Health Expenditures. 45 cents.
No. 3. The One-Hour Glucose Tolerance Test. 30 cents.
No. 4. Comparison of Two Methods of Constructing Abridged Life Tables. 15 cents.
No. 5. An Index of Health: Mathematical Models.
Series 3.
No. 1.
No. 2.
Scries 4.
Series 10.
No.
1.
No.
2.
No.
3.
No.
4.
No.
5.
No.
6.
No.
7.
No.
8.
No.
9.
No.
10.
No.
11.
No.
12.
No.
13.
No.
14.
No.
15.
No.
16.
No.
17.
Series
11.
No.
1.
No.
2.
No.
3.
No.
4.
No.
5.
No.
6.
No.
7.
No.
6.
Series
12.
Series 20.
Series 21.
No. 1.
No. 2.
Analytical studies
The Change in Mortality Trend in the United States. 35 cents.
Recent Mortality Trends in Chile. 30 cents.
Documents and committee reports
No reports to date.
Data From the Health Interview Survey
Acute Conditions, Incidence and Associated Disability, United States, July 1961-June 1902. 40 cents.
Family Income in Relation to Selected Health Characteristics, United States. 40 cents.
Length of Convalescence After Surgery, United States, July 1900-June 1961. 35 cents.
Disability Days, United States, July 1961-June 1962. 40 cents.
Current Estimates From the Health Interview Survey, United States, July 1962-Junc 1963. 35 cents.
Impairments Due to Injury, by Class and Type of Accident, United States, July 1959-June 1961. 25 cents.
Disability Among Persons in the Labor Force, by Employment Status, United States, July 1961-June 1962. 40 cents.
Types of Injuries, Incidence and Associated Disability, United States, July 1957-June 1961. 35 cents.
Medical Care, Health Status, and Family Income, United States. 55 cents.
Acute Conditions, Incidence and Associated Disability, United States, July 1962-June 1963. 45 cents.
Health Insurance Coverage, United States, July 1962-June 1963. 35 cents.
Bed Disability Among the Chronically Limited, United States, July 1957-June 1961. 45 cents.
Current Estimates From the Health Interview Survey, United States, July 1963-June 1964. 40 cents.
Illness, Disability, and Hospitalization Among Veterans, United States, July 1957-June 1961. 35 cents.
Acute Conditions, Incidence and Associated Disability, United States, July 1963-June 1964. 40 cents.
Health Insurance, Type of Insuring Organization and Multiple Coverage, United States, July 1962-June 1963.
Chronic Conditions and Activity Limitations, United States, July 1961-June 1963.
Data From the Health Examination Survey
Cycle I of the Health Examination Survey: Sample and Response, United States, 1960-1962. 30 cents.
Glucose Tolerance of Adults, United States, 1960-1962. 25 cents.
Binocular Visual Acuity of Adults, United States, 1960-1962. 25 cents.
Blood Pressure of Adults, by Age and Sex, United States, 1960-1962. 35 cents.
Blood Pressure of Adults, by Race and Region, United States, 1960-1962. 25 cents.
Heart Disease in Adults, United States, 1960-1962. 35 cents.
Selected Dental Findings in Adults, United States, 1960-1962. 30 cents.
Weight, Height, and Selected Body Dimension? of Adults, United States, 1960-1962.
Data From the Health Records Survey
No reports to date.
Data on mortality
No reports to date.
Data on natality, marriage, and divorce
Natality Statistics Analysis, United States, 1962. 45 cents.
Demographic Characteristics of Persons Married Between January 1955 and June 1958, United States. 35 cents.
Series 22. Data from the program of sample surveys related to vital records
No reports to data.
Live Music
Archive
Librivox
Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland
Museum of Art
Internet
Arcade
Console Living Room
Open Library
American
Libraries
TV News
Understanding
9/11